a qualitative evaluation of leader-to-millennial

Walden UniversityScholarWorks

Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral StudiesCollection

2016

A Qualitative Evaluation of Leader-to-MillennialRelationship DevelopmentTywana WilliamsWalden University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations

Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, and theManagement Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, pleasecontact [email protected].

http://www.waldenu.edu/?utm_source=scholarworks.waldenu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2304&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://www.waldenu.edu/?utm_source=scholarworks.waldenu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2304&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu?utm_source=scholarworks.waldenu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2304&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations?utm_source=scholarworks.waldenu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2304&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissanddoc?utm_source=scholarworks.waldenu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2304&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissanddoc?utm_source=scholarworks.waldenu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2304&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations?utm_source=scholarworks.waldenu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2304&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/623?utm_source=scholarworks.waldenu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2304&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/637?utm_source=scholarworks.waldenu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2304&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

Walden University

College of Management and Technology

This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by

Tywana Williams

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by

the review committee have been made.

Review Committee

Dr. Robert DeYoung, Committee Chairperson, Management Faculty

Dr. Jean Gordon, Committee Member, Management Faculty

Dr. Carol Wells, University Reviewer, Management Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

Eric Riedel, Ph.D.

Walden University

2016

Abstract

A Qualitative Evaluation of Leader-to-Millennial Relationship Development

by

Tywana Williams

MA, University of Phoenix, 2009

BS, University of Phoenix, 2007

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Management

Walden University

May 2016

Abstract

Generational conflicts affect socialization practices needed for knowledge transfer and

Millennial retention. Because of failed socialization practices, organizations will face

significant losses in knowledge capital as Boomers retire and Millennials began to take

active roles within the workplace. This interpretative phenomenological study explored

Millennials’ perceptions of leader-to-employee relationship development that may

influence organizational learning and retention practices. Millennial retention is a

primary concern in that knowledge acquired is a result of longevity and work experience.

The leader-to-member exchange theory was used to navigate this qualitative inquiry. The

reflexive approach was implemented to explore 20 Millennial participants’ experiences

with their managers. The data analysis strategy incorporated a repetitious review and

structural coding of participant interview transcripts. Data analysis affirmed that

Millennials perceive effective relationship development as a process containing leader

empowerment behaviors with collaborative social exchanges. Exploration of participant

experiences further identified that reciprocity is a result of high-quality social exchanges.

Research findings benefit executive and middle-level management. The information

broadens management knowledge of Millennials’ perceptions of relationship

development that may increase employee retention needed for robust social systems. The

implications for positive social change are that increased awareness of advanced

relational leadership systems assists in building congruent internal relationships required

for organizational learning and retention.

A Qualitative Evaluation of Leader-to-Millennial Relationship Development

by

Tywana Williams

MA, University of Phoenix, 2009

BS, University of Phoenix, 2007

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Management

Walden University

May 2016

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my mother, Tonda Williams, who provided the blueprint for

individuality, spiritual strength, and work ethic. I am in deep gratitude for my son Phillip

R. Scott III, his quiet support and warm heart that inspired me to take this journey. I want

to extend a special dedication to my father, Robert L. Williams Jr., for being a consistent

supportive presence in my life. Finally, I would like to thank Richard K. Frasca and

Wonderlyn Horsley for encouragement throughout the years. Your positive words and

energy provided a foundation that assisted me with attaining my doctoral degree.

Acknowledgments

I am thankful for my personal relationship with my heavenly father for enabling me to

withstand the challenges during my dissertation journey. I would like to acknowledge my

committee chair Dr. Robert DeYoung for his encouragement and mentorship. I would

like to thank committee members Dr. Jean Gordon and Dr. Carol Wells for their expertise

and collaboration that inspired me throughout the review process.

i

Table of Contents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1

Background ....................................................................................................................3

Social Mobility........................................................................................................ 3

Generational Characterizations ............................................................................... 4

Millennials’ Socializations into the Workforce ...................................................... 8

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................9

Problem Statement .......................................................................................................11

Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................12

Research Questions ......................................................................................................12

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................13

LMX Theoretical Framework ............................................................................... 15

LMX Sub-theories ................................................................................................ 16

LMX and Traditional Leadership Paradigms ....................................................... 16

LMX Theory and Development of the Interview Questions ................................ 17

Nature of Study ............................................................................................................19

Assumptions .................................................................................................................22

Limitations ...................................................................................................................23

Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................24

Significance of Study ...................................................................................................25

ii

Summary ......................................................................................................................26

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................28

Literature Search Strategy............................................................................................30

Theoretical Foundation ................................................................................................31

The Roles of LMX Elements ................................................................................ 32

LMX and Relationship Development ................................................................... 36

Significance of the LMX Theory .......................................................................... 38

Literature Review of Millennials in Organizations .....................................................38

Millennials and Traditional Hierarchical Structures ............................................. 39

Millennials’ Communication and Socialization Skills ......................................... 42

Millennials’ Learning and Knowledge Acquirement ........................................... 43

Millennials’ Leadership Preferences ..................................................................... 44

Millennials and Retention ..................................................................................... 46

Gap in Research ...........................................................................................................50

Summary ......................................................................................................................52

Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................54

Research Design and Rationale ...................................................................................54

Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................56

Method and Design ......................................................................................................57

Participant Selection Logic ................................................................................... 57

Recruitment Strategy ............................................................................................ 58

Sampling Strategy ................................................................................................. 59

iii

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 60

Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 62

Data Analysis Plan ................................................................................................ 63

Data Management Plan ......................................................................................... 67

Issues of Trustworthiness .............................................................................................67

Creditability .......................................................................................................... 68

Transferability ....................................................................................................... 68

Dependability ........................................................................................................ 69

Confirmability ....................................................................................................... 69

Ethical Procedures .......................................................................................................70

Institutional Permissions ....................................................................................... 71

Informed Consent.................................................................................................. 71

Debriefing Process ................................................................................................ 71

Treatment of Data ................................................................................................. 72

Summary ......................................................................................................................72

Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................74

Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................75

Research Setting...........................................................................................................76

Participants and Sampling Strategy .............................................................................78

Data Collection Methods .............................................................................................80

Analysis of Interview Data ..........................................................................................80

Transcription ......................................................................................................... 81

iv

Bracketing ............................................................................................................. 81

Data Coding and Analysis .................................................................................... 81

Results and Findings ....................................................................................................90

Primary Theme 1: Empowerment ................................................................................91

Subtheme 1: Opportunities to Learn ..................................................................... 92

Subtheme 2: Employees Must Express an Openness to Learn ............................. 93

Subtheme 3: Mentoring......................................................................................... 94

Subtheme 4: Collaborative .................................................................................... 95

Subtheme 5: Open Communications .................................................................... 96

Subtheme 6: Employee Openness ......................................................................... 97

Subtheme 7: Direct Communications ................................................................... 98

Subtheme 8: Constructive Criticism ..................................................................... 99

Primary Theme 2: Reciprocity ...................................................................................100

Subtheme 9: Trust ............................................................................................... 101

Subtheme 10: Manger’s Respect for Employee.................................................. 102

Subtheme 11: Employee Respect for Manager’s Role ....................................... 103

Qualities of Discrepant Cases ....................................................................................104

Evidence of Trustworthiness......................................................................................106

Creditability ........................................................................................................ 106

Transferability ..................................................................................................... 108

Dependability ...................................................................................................... 109

Confirmability ..................................................................................................... 110

v

Data Saturation.................................................................................................... 110

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................111

Research Central Question .................................................................................. 112

Sub Question 1a .................................................................................................. 112

Sub Question 1b .................................................................................................. 112

Sub Question 1c .................................................................................................. 113

Sub Question 1d .................................................................................................. 113

Chapter 5: Interpretation of the Findings .........................................................................115

Discussion ................................................................................................................1115

Empowerment Behaviors .................................................................................... 116

Reciprocity .......................................................................................................... 119

Millennials Shared Experiences of Relationship Development.......................... 120

Analysis of Gap Found in Literature Review ..................................................... 121

Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................129

Recommendations ......................................................................................................130

Social Change Implications .......................................................................................131

Conclusion .................................................................................................................133

References ..................................................................................................................135

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate ........................................................................186

Appendix B: 1st Chamber of Commerce Letter of Cooperation ................................187

Appendix C: 2nd

Chamber of Commerce Letter of Cooperation ...............................188

Appendix D: Qualitative Interview Protocol .............................................................189

vi

Appendix E: Expert Panel Email Invitation ...............................................................190

Appendix F: IRB Forms and Approval ......................................................................192

Appendix G: Informed Consent .................................................................................194

Appendix H: Participant Inclusion/Exclusion Screening Questions .........................196

vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Participant Demographics ................................................................................... 79

Table 2. Primary Theme 1: Empowerment ....................................................................... 92

Table 3. Subtheme 1:Opportunities to Learn .................................................................... 93

Table 4. Subtheme 2: Employees Must Express an Openness to Learn ........................... 94

Table 5. Subtheme 3: Mentoring ...................................................................................... 95

Table 6. Subtheme 4: Collaborative.................................................................................. 96

Table 7. Subtheme 5: Open Communications .................................................................. 97

Table 8. Subtheme 6: Employee Openness ....................................................................... 98

Table 9. Subtheme 7: Direct Communications ................................................................. 99

Table 10. Subtheme 8: Constructive Criticism ............................................................... 100

Table 11. Primary Theme 2: Reciprocity ........................................................................ 101

Table 12. Subtheme 9: Trust ........................................................................................... 102

Table 13. Subtheme 10: Manager’s Respect for Employee ............................................ 103

Table 14. Subtheme 11: Employee Respect for Manager’s Role ................................... 104

Table A1. Interview Protocol .......................................................................................... 189

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the leader-to-Millennial exchange ...................................14

Figure 2. LMX and relationship development ...................................................................36

Figure 3. IPA coding and analytical strategy .....................................................................82

Figure 4. Stage 3 structural process ...................................................................................84

Figure 5. Sub question 1a: Emergent themes.....................................................................85

Figure 6. Sub question 1b: Emergent themes ....................................................................86

Figure 7. Sub question 1c: Emergent themes.....................................................................86

Figure 8. Sub question 1d: Emergent themes ....................................................................87

Figure 9. Sub question 1d: Leader attributes .....................................................................87

Figure 10. Sub question 1d: Employee attributes ..............................................................88

Figure 11. Combined emerging themes .............................................................................90

Figure 12. Effective leader-to-Millennial employee relationship model .........................116

1

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Global aging will contribute to a decline in domestic labor, whereby the supply for

productive members of the workforce will diminish as older workers retire (DeFranco &

Schmidgall, 2014; Higo & Kahn, 2014; Kulik, Ryan, Harper & George, 2014). Due to

ineffective social exchanges, organizations will experience deficits in learning and knowledge

sharing of workforce members (Colquitt et al., 2013; Cummings-White & Diala, 2013; Sabri,

Haron, Jamil, & Ibrahim, 2014). Researchers identified that young employees ages 18-32

encounter difficulties in the acquirement of work relationships needed for job effectiveness

(Akhras, 2015; Graen & Schiemann, 2013). Work relationships developed between leader and

employee that support learning and organizational performance (Biao & Shuping, 2014; Carter,

Armenakis, Feild, & Mossholder, 2013). Establishing effective leader-to-Millennial employee

relationships is challenging due to diverse generational characteristics and work values (Helyer

& Lee, 2012; Uelman, 2013).

According to Hendricks and Cope (2013), leaders find it difficult to establish a working

relationship with Millennials. Researchers identified that differing generational characteristics

and work values may influence communications and social development of Millennial

employees (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010;

Westerman, Bergman, Bergman, & Daly, 2012). Comparison of generational psychological traits

found that Millennials have an increase of individualist and narcissistic characteristics that guide

their social behaviors within a professional environment (Twenge & Campbell, 2008). Zemke,

Raines, & Filipczak (2013) determined that Millennials value collaborative work environments.

In contrast, older employees display strong values toward independence and autonomy (Gursoy,

2

Chi, Karadag, 2013). These differences in characteristics and work values may contribute to

inconsistencies within role expectations and knowledge transfer methods (Kuyken, 2012; Starks,

2013). An understanding of the work relational expectations of Millennial employees may

provide an opportunity to establish effective multigenerational socialization methods needed for

organizational performance.

A synergistic multigenerational work environment requires positive social change (Kaifi,

Nafei, Khanfar, & Kaifi, 2012; Ng, Lyons, & Schweitzer, 2012). Social change takes place as

generations within organizations collaborate and develop new concepts needed to meet

sociocultural demands (Mannheim, 1952). According to Howe and Jackson (2012), social

change is a transformational process. The authors proposed that as older generations retire from

organizational roles, knowledge and resources are transferred to the younger generation.

Building high-quality leader-to- Millennial relationships may assist with continuing the

organization's vision.

Although most studies focus on leadership as a predictor of transformational change,

relationship-based aspects initiatives provide a core component within the transmission of

organizational goals (Aarons & Sommerfeld, 2012; Brouer, Douglas, Treadway, & Ferris, 2013;

Metcalf & Benn, 2013). An understanding of Millennials’ perceptions of leader-to-employee

relationships may aid in the development of relational contributions, to promote positive social

change within multigenerational organizations.

In Chapter 1, I will present the foundation for the qualitative examination of Millennials’

experiences within leader-to-employee relationships. The background of the study will contain

the social implications of Millennial influence on relationship development as well as provide a

3

brief summary of major generational categorizations. The problem and purpose statement will

contain the elements that lead to the development of the research questions and theoretical

framework. The nature of the study, assumptions, limitations, scope, and delimitations will

define the research design. Finally, the significance of the study involves the implications for

research inquiry, workplace practice, and positive social change within leadership systems.

Background

Understanding the social implications of Millennial influence on leader-to-employee

relationship development starts with the evaluation of social mobility and generational

characterizations. This section will end with a brief synopsis of Millennials’ socialization into the

workplace and the importance of qualitative evaluations of the cohort’s perceptions of leader-to-

employee relationship development.

Social Mobility

Sorokin (1959) defined social mobility, as the process that occurs, as cultures shift

because of individual relationships with others and social phenomena. Cultural values are

learned or transformed according to societal demands (Mannheim, 1952; Ossenkop, Vinkenburg,

Jansen, & Ghorashi, 2015). The fundamental basis for understanding the influence of Millennials

on organizational behaviors starts with the conception of social mobility as a component that

contributes to organizational change (Roodin & Mendelson, 2013). Researchers suggest that

changes occur within the organizational structure, due to the emergence and management of a

multigenerational work environment (Cahill & Sedrak, 2012; Hillman, 2014; Kuyken, 2012).

The relationships formed within organizational structures stimulate change within collective

behaviors and societal expectations (Cummings et al., 2013; Mannheim, 1952; Tams, 2013). The

4

socialization of Millennials within today’s workplace may stimulate the growth and

advancement of organizational practices.

Generational Characterizations

Generational cohort theorists guide past and current studies toward understanding group

characterizations (Howe & Strauss, 2009; Twenge et al., 2010). Generational groups consist of

individuals who share similar behaviors because of historical, cultural, and economic influences

that occur during the first 30 years of lifespan development (Jorgenson, 2003; Smola & Sutton,

2002; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). Although personality traits shape individual behaviors,

scientific analysis of generational characteristics and human behavior provides an understanding

of components that influence the communications, learning, and retention of cultural values

(Howe & Strauss, 2009; Mannheim, 1952). These characteristics assist with defining

generational categorizations. The generational categorizations addressed in this study include

Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. Beginning and ending periods identified within the

categorization of generational cohorts are approximations given the broad understanding that

historical, cultural, and biological factors contribute to cohort development (Smola & Sutton,

2002; Twenge et al., 2010). The generational categories and characteristics are as follows:

Boomers. Boomers are individuals born between 1946 and 1964 (Findlay & Kowbel,

2013; Jorgenson, 2003; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). These individuals hold the majority of

upper executive positions within organizations in the United States (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012;

Corwin, 2015). The Vietnam War and civil rights movements influenced Boomers’ behaviors

(Howe & Strauss, 2009). Twenge (2007) identified that the women’s liberation movement

influenced the increase of female members entering the job market. These historical events had

5

an impact on social change within both community and organizational environments (Sorokin,

1959). Twenge et al. (2010) proposed that women entering the workforce influenced the

development of the succeeding generations (Generation X and Millennial) values toward gender

equality, two-working parents and single parent family structures.

Generational theorists suggested that Boomers’ optimism toward their career endeavors

reinforced their values and efforts toward professional goal achievement (Young, Sturts, Ross, &

Kim, 2013). Driven and dedicated toward building effective organizational relationships,

Boomers contribute to the development of the traditional hierarchical structure (Howe & Strauss,

2009). Managers view Boomers as long-term employees who value the progress and

involvement of working up organizational ranks (Zemke et al., 2013). Boomers provide a

valuable human resource within the cultivation and stability of organizational culture,

knowledge, and performance.

Generation X’ers. Generation X’ers are individuals born between the years 1965 and

1981 (Jorgenson, 2003, Twenge, 2007). Members of Generation X followed extreme changes

within the traditional family structure (Twenge & Campbell, 2008). Twenge proposed that the

increased divorce rate and social changes with the rearing of this select group, influenced

independent behaviors. Twenge asserted that Generation X is smaller in population as compared

to both Boomer and Millennial cohorts. The small population is a result of women’s birth control

pill consumption and conscious efforts to pursue careers, as opposed to starting families early

within life-span development (Howe & Strauss, 2009; Smola & Sutton, 2002).

Generation X’ers possesses an independent work ethic in comparison to the Boomers and

Millennials (Twenge et al., 2010). According to Howe and Strauss (2009), individuals within the

6

Generation X group lack people skills due to single parenting and dual working family homes.

Children were often left home alone for the majority of the day. The term latch key kids defined

the era of children independence (Gilley, Waddell, Hall, Jackson, & Gilley, 2015). These

components contributed to cohorts work attitudes a career development.

According to Costanza and Finkelstein (2015), Generation X’ers show gradual changes in

work attitudes. Twenge (2007) proposed that because of increased job losses due to periods of

downsizing during economic uncertainty, cohort members lack organizational commitment.

Economic uncertainty inspired gradual shifts within organizational expectations (O’Reilly,

Caldwell, Chatman, & Doerr, 2014). These changes in attitudes influenced the cohorts’ demands

for work-life balance. Work-life balance contributed to social changes within employee values

and beliefs towards incorporating leisure and recreation as key components of professional

success (Twenge et al., 2010).

Millennials. Individuals born between the years 1982 and 1999 comprise the Millennial

generation (Findlay & Kowbel, 2013; Jorgenson, 2003). Hite et al. (2015) contend that the

Millennial generation consists of a diverse cultural population of individuals. According to

Twenge and Campbell (2008), individuals within the generational group watched several iconic

companies, such as Enron, Tyco, and Arthur Anderson, collapse due to unethical leadership.

Historical events, such as the shooting at Columbine and the September 11 terrorist attacks

contributed to the generation’s outlook on organizational and national security (Debevec,

Schewe, Madden, & Diamond, 2013). Twenge and Campbell identified that these events may

have contributed to cohort uncertainty within organizational structures and policies.

7

Millennials are comfortable and adapt quickly to computer advancements. According to

Howe and Strauss (2009), Millennials are digitally connected and utilize computerized mediums

as a significant form of social-networking connections. Facebook, LinkedIn, and Myspace

contribute to the exposure and acceptance of diverse cultures (Espinoza & Schwarzbart, 2015).

Hite, Daspit, & Dong (2015) proposed that increased immigration influence positive social

change within Millennial attitudes toward cultural diversity. Although the generation possesses

qualities that contribute to the development of a stable and innovative approach to socio-

economic challenges, contrasting work values of Boomer and Generation X contribute to

organizational conflicts and lack of Millennial employee retention (Hillman, 2014; Murray,

2011).

Technological advancements influenced Millennial communication methods and

processes. Hershatter and Epstein (2010) affirmed that Millennials process information

differently. The researchers proposed that computerized communications influence learning. As

a result of e-mail correspondence, social networking, and text messaging, Millennials developed

new attitudes toward personal and professional social exchanges (Abaffy & Rubin, 2011; Sinha

& Rauscher, 2014). The Internet contributes to the generation’s approach to gathering

information (Berman & Marshall, 2014; Gilbert, 2011). Generational analyst suggested that as a

result of computerized information processing, Millennials want rapid feedback and instant

gratification within workplace practices (Howe & Strauss, 2009; Jorgenson, 2003; Twenge et al.,

2010).

The evaluation of Boomer, Generation X, and Millennial characteristics provides an

understanding of cohort values within the workplace (Kelan, 2014; Kuhl, 2014; Samadi, Wei,

8

Seyfee, Yusoff, 2015). Researchers’ perceptions of generational differences assist with

developing the foundation for exploring Millennials’ influence on organizational social change

(Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Howe & Strauss, 2009; Twenge et al., 2010). Mannheim (1952)

asserted that generational cycles, which occur when a new generation enters society, aid in the

elasticity and evolution of social cultures. In other words, social change is inevitable (Sorokin,

1959). Qualitative evaluations may broaden research knowledge within the social development

and of the youngest workforce member.

Millennials’ Socializations into the Workforce

The college student population is part of the Millennial age cohort, and on graduation,

college students will enter the workforce (Miller & Slocombe, 2012). Millennials’ socialization

may play a critical role in social change within the organizational workforce (Ertas, 2015; Graen

& Schiemann, 2013). Researchers’ evaluations of Millennials, while in the college environment,

contribute to current discussions regarding leadership systems (Much,Wagener, Breitkreutz,

Hellenbrand, 2014; Westerman et al., 2012). Pizzolato and Hicklen (2011) evaluated college

students’ parent-child relationships for greater understanding of epistemological development

and social learning. The authors suggested that close relationships with parents contribute to

Millennials’ independence and ability to form relationships outside of the familial structure.

Reports of Millennials’ social behaviors and ethical orientation within university environments

may contribute to a broader understanding of Millennials’ socialization practices in the

workplace (Pressley & Kennett-Hensel, 2013). Differences between college and organizational

cultures may influence the articulation of the Millennial socialization process.

9

Millennial employee behaviors affect the development of organizational strategies geared

toward attraction, motivation, and retention of the youngest member of the workplace (Abaffy &

Rubin, 2011; Graen & Grace, 2015). Work-life balance, career advancement, and learning

opportunities are being used to encourage Millennial involvement (Thompson, 2013).

Management literature and resources such as, mentorship programs, executive coaching, and

seminars assists with multigenerational leadership as Millennials began to take active roles in

working society (Hays, 2014). Although Millennial behaviors are defined and discussed within

organizational change initiatives, evaluations of Millennial professional working relationships

are minimal within management and leadership systems.

According to Deloittle (2014), only 16% of working Millennials perceived that their

organization understand their behaviors. Acquiring information through exploring Millennial

employees’ working experiences minimizes misconceptions that can lead to stagnant

socialization measures and decreased retention rates. Exchanges that occur within leader-to-

Millennial relationship development provide themes to conceptualize the cohort’s shared

experience. I gathered and analyzed participant responses to address the gap in knowledge that

disconnects Millennial relationship development within the performance and retention of

Millennials in the workplace (Graen & Schiemann, 2013; Kaifi et al., 2012; Murray, 2011).

Definition of Terms

Boomers: Individuals who were born between 1946 and 1964 (Twenge & Campbell,

2008). Boomers may hold senior level positions and provide the foundation for traditional

methods of leadership (Howe & Strauss, 2009).

10

Generation X’ers: Individuals who were born between 1965 and 1981 (Twenge, 2013).

Generation X’ers influence social change within working systems in that employees’ embrace

independence and quality of work-life (Espinoza & Schwarzbart, 2015; Twenge et al., 2010)

Hierarchical structure: A linear approach within the top-down filtration of information

within organizations (Arshad, Goh, Rasli, 2014; Flink 2015).

Leader(s): Individuals who implement and manage organizational change (Bass & Bass,

2009). For the purposes of this study, leaders and managers have the same organizational role

and may provide employees resources for learning and performance.

Leader-to-employee: The term adapted by the leader-to-member exchange (LMX) theory

(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hu & Liden, 2013). For the purposes of this study, this term is used

when referring to social exchanges that occur between leader and employee.

Leader-to-member: The term within the LMX theory used when referring to the social

exchanges that occur between leaders and employees within an organizational group (Graen &

Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hu & Liden, 2013).

Leader-to-Millennial: The term adapted by the LMX theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;

Hu & Liden, 2013). For the purposes of this study, this term is used when referring to the social

exchanges between leader-to-Millennial employees.

Leadership system: The interactive practices and resources that assist with the

implementation and management of organizational change (Bass & Bass, 2009; Day, 2014).

Millennials: Individuals who were born between 1982 and 1999 are called (Twenge et

al., 2010). Millennials are influenced by technological advancements and historical events that

contributed to social change (Espinoza & Schwarzbart, 2015; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010)

11

Organizational social systems: A group of individuals’ communications methods and

relationships that assist with learning and goal achievement (Pan et al., 2012; von Schlippe &

Frank, 2013).

Relationship development: Relationship development is an individualistic process in

leadership that is continuous and dependent on the quality of the social exchange between leader

and member (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1993).

Problem Statement

United States organizations will face significant losses in knowledge capital as Boomers

retire and Millennials began to take active roles within the workplace (Ertas; 2015; Pobst, 2014).

Millennial retention is a primary concern in that employees gain organizational knowledge

through active attendance (Farell & Hurt, 2014; Tulgan, 2011). The average tenure of Millennial

employees is 3.0 years compared to Boomer employee average tenure of 10.4 years (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2013). Increased employee turnovers affect the performance and stability

of organizations (Kim & Fernandez, 2015). The general organizational problem is managements’

inability to increase Millennial employee retention, which provides the foundation for

organizational learning. The problem is emphasized within the implementation of organizational

benefits to attract Millennials that prove ineffective in sustaining cohort employment (Carpenter

& Charon, 2014; Eversole, Venneberg, & Crowder, 2012; Michael, 2014). Flexible work

schedules, technological, and career advancements appeal to Millennials but fail at providing the

resources to build leader-to-employee relationships needed for organizational retention (Graen &

Schiemann, 2013; Kuhl, 2014). Minimal studies are found to support leader-to-employee

relationship development as a component of Millennial organizational performance. The specific

12

organizational problem is that there is a lack of resources provided to build high-quality leader-

to-Millennial relationships. Understanding Millennials perceptions of leader-to-employee

development may enable methods to increase organizational learning and employment retention.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative interpretative phenomenological study was to explore

Millennial employees’ experiences within leader-to-Millennial relationship development. Prior

to research implementation, the leader-to-Millennial relationship was defined as the interactions

that occur within task delegation and role development that assist with building high-quality

relationships. The target population encompassed Millennial employees in Long Island, New

York who were working with leaders for one year of more. The population was appropriate in

that Keeter and Taylor (2010) identified that 6 out of 10 Millennials will leave their current

employer. Developing effective leader-to-Millennial relationships is an arduous task in that

members of the cohort are perceived as disloyal (Chaudhuri, & Ghosh, 2012; Myers &

Sadaghiani, 2010). The implications for positive social change include broadening management

knowledge needed for relational leadership resources for Millennial employee learning and

retention.

Research Questions

I pose the central question: What are Millennials’ perceptions of effective leader-to-

employee relationship development? The following sub questions helped guide my qualitative

interpretative phenomenological study:

RQ1a: How do Millennials perceive leader-to-employee relationship within the

workplace?

13

RQ1b: How do Millennials describe leader-to-employee social exchanges within role

development practices?

RQ1c: How do Millennials describe leader-to-employee social exchanges within task

delegation practices?

RQ1d: How do Millennials describe high-quality relationships?

Conceptual Framework

Hershatter and Epstein (2010) suggested that the Millennial expectations of leader-to-

employee social exchanges divert from traditional hierarchical structures. Millennials require

frequent social interactions and guidance (Cahill & Sedrak, 2012; Miller & Slocombe, 2012;

Ogbeide, Fenich, Scott-Halsell, & Kesterson, 2013). Even though Hershatter and Epstein

stressed differences within Millennial and traditional methods of socialization, minimal

information is found to expand management’s body of knowledge within the development of

high-quality leader-to-Millennial relationships. Haeger and Lingham (2013) puts forth the claim

that Millennial employees expect to develop close relationships with leadership. Current

knowledge of the cohort’s perception and context of relationship development requires

comprehensive discussions within management studies.

The LMX theory is used to explore Millennial experiences within leader-to-employee

relationships. In the conceptual framework, the LMX is illustrated to outline the elements and

social interactions that determine relationship quality with individual members within a group.

These actions may help leaders categorize Millennial employees for effective task delegation. I

created Figure 1 on the basis of Liden and Graen (1980) and Dienesch and Liden (1986) theories,

for the purpose of this study to provide a conceptual understanding of high and low-quality

14

relationship development. Employees are classified as in or out group members (Dienesch &

Liden, 1986). According to Liden and Graen (1980), in group members are employees who have

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the leader-to-Millennial exchange. Conceptual model created for

this study using the leader-to-member exchange (LMX) theory. Liden and Graen (1980)

proposed that leader and member within hierarchical relationships produce high or low

exchanges needed for in or out group selection. The process assists with leader decision-making

and determines relationship quality (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).

developed high-quality exchanges with leaders. Dienesch and Liden suggested that separating

employees into two groups assist with effective decision making for overall goal achievement.

Leader Millennial

High-Quality Exchange

Low-Quality Exchange

High-Quality Relationship In-Group

Out-Group

Low-Quality Relationship

15

The process is critical to leadership navigation and employee performance during times of rapid

internal and external change (Lam, Peng, Wong, 2015; Metcalf & Benn, 2013).

The performance of leader-to-employee exchanges predicts the quality of relationship

development (Casimir, Ngee, Ng, Yuan Wang, & Ooi, 2014; Jaiswal & Srivastava, 2015). High-

quality relationships include dyadic exchanges that result in the reciprocity of knowledge,

resources, and skills to meet organizational goals (Aarons & Sommerfeld, 2012; Hays, 2014;

Volmer, Spul, & Niessen, 2012). Leader and employee within high-quality dyadic exchanges

show positive attitudes toward performing tasks and responsibilities outside of their formal

employment contract (Liden and Graen, 1980). Reciprocity and positive attitudes in the

workplace influence productive leader and employee behaviors (Chaudhry & Tekleab, 2013;

Gkorezis, Bellou, & Skemperis, 2015). Low-quality exchanges lack the rigor and enthusiasm

found within high-quality exchanges; despite organizational demands that may require increase

employee effort (Furunes, Mykletun, Einarsen, & Glasø, 2015; Kauppila, 2015). The LMX

theory provides the attributes that enable increased involvement needed for employee learning

and performance (Hinojosa, Davis-Mcauley, Randolph-Seng, & Gardner, 2014; Mazur, 2012).

LMX Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework contains the logistics that underlie the phenomenon observed

(Maxwell, 2012; Vagel, 2014). The LMX theory developed by Graen (2003) and his peers

provide a broad explanation of the components and behaviors that may stimulate leader-to-

Millennial relationship development. The theorist proposed that the leadership relationship

consist of three elements: (a) leader (b) member, and (c) exchange platform (Graen & Uhl-Bien,

1995; Liden & Graen, 1980). These elements contribute to the leader-to-employee mutual

16

exchange of knowledge and values. The following theoretical evaluation describes (a) LMX sub-

theories (b) LMX and traditional leadership paradigms (c) LMX theory as a conceptual

framework, and (d) LMX theory and development of the interview instrument. In Chapter 2, I

will provide a synthesis of seminal and current theoretical literature as it relates to the conceptual

evaluation of leader-to-Millennial relationship development within organizational social systems.

LMX Sub-theories

The LMX theory incorporates the role, social, and dyadic exchange theories (Graen &

Uhl-Bien, 1995; Vidyarthi, Erdogan, Anand, Liden, & Chaudhry, 2014). These sub-theories

underlie leader-to-Millennial relationship development (Maxwell, 2012; Vagel, 2014). Liden and

Graen (1980) describe the role theory as the process that occurs to assist employees with

organizational placement. Leader task delegation practices help develop employee functions and

responsibilities (Kelley & Bisell, 2014). Liden and Graen suggested that the social exchange

theory frame leader-to-employee communications. Leader networking style and affective

behaviors may influence employee commitment and job performance (Chaudhuri & Ghosh,

2012; Schullery, 2013; Zhang et al., 2012). The dyadic exchange theory include practices that

encourage mutuality of leader, employee, and organizational values (Humborstad & Kuvaas,

2013; Sherman, Kennedy, Woodard, & McComb, 2012).

LMX and Traditional Leadership Paradigms

The LMX theory differs from traditional leadership theories (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

The core concept of the LMX is that leaders form unique relationships with individual members

within a team, group, or department (Liden & Graen, 1980). Traditional leadership theorists

argued that relationships formed between leader and individual members are of the same quality

17

(Bass & Bass, 2009; Carter et al., 2013). Leadership is transactional in that collective

performance is measured by governing rewards and behaviors (Breevaart et al., 2014). Kwak

(2012) proposed that leaders’ charismatic behaviors positively influence followers’ beliefs

toward organizational goals and initiatives. Leaders’ behaviors embody energetic methods to

increase employee enthusiasm needed to push organizational change (Bligh & Kohles, 2012;

Weber & Moore, 2014). Although leaders provide a core function, employee diversity in age,

ethnicity, and gender determine the effectiveness of traditional leadership views of homogeneous

organizational groups (Graen, 2003; Duncan & Herrera, 2014).

According to Petroulas et al. (2010), organizations are heterogeneous, whereby, leaders'

view employees as individuals with diverse qualities and characteristics. Differences found in

organizational groups impact leader effectiveness (Espinoza & Schwarzbart, 2015; Jonsen, Tatli,

Özbilgin, & Bell, 2013). Generational characteristics contribute to organizational changes within

the communications and tact of hierarchical structures (Gursoy, Chi, & Karadag, 2013;

Kultalahti & Viitala, 2015). Researchers’ suggested that heterogeneous groups may require

different methods and resources to meet performance demands (Holt, Marques, & Way, 2012;

Zheng & Wang, 2012). In heterogeneous organizations skills and social assessments of both

leader and employee, assist with developing relationships to meet external and organizational

changes (Cummings et al., 2013, Gooty, Serban, Thomas, Gavin, & Yammarino, 2012).

LMX Theory and Development of the Interview Questions

The LMX theory provides the basis for the development of the interview questions. The

interview question constructed for this study required Millennials to explore working

experiences with leadership to interpret and report emerging themes that describe the essence of

18

leader-to-Millennial relationship development. These experiences include social exchanges that

occur within leader task delegation and role development practices (Humborstad & Kuvaas,

2013; Imran & Fatima, 2013). Participant responses towards questions regarding leader social

exchanges provide a comprehensive interpretation of high-quality leader-to-Millennial

relationships.

The leader-to-employee relationship incorporate tools needed to influence social

behaviors that occur as a result of diversity (Graen, 2003). The seminal theorists suggested that

diversity within in age, ethnicity, values, and attitudes are essential elements that stimulate social

change (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The differences in work values between generations are

needed to challenge old paradigms no longer useful within the advancement of social

organizations (Mannheim, 1952). The evaluation of leader-to-Millennial exchanges may

minimize misconception of generational relational influences on social change. Generational

influences guide the establishment of leader-to-employee relations, whereby leaders assist with

the development of younger cohorts’ professional growth to facilitate the transition and

development of positive organizational change (Kuron, Lyons, Schweitzer, & Ng, 2015;

Stephenson, 2014).

Millennial generational characteristics may prompt change within leadership systems

(Maier, Tavanti, Bombard, Gentile, & Bradford, 2015; Wok & Hashim, 2013). Researchers’

suggested that Millennial distinctive work behaviors cause conflicts within the socialization and

performance of hierarchical structures (Coulter & Faulkner, 2014; Helyer & Lee, 2012; Twenge,

2007). Explorations of leader-to-Millennial relationships remain hermetic in the performance

evaluations of leadership practices that implement organizational change initiatives. Gathering a

19

rich and thick description of leader-to-Millennial exchange in both task delegation and role

development practices supplement current applications used to cultivate young professionals.

The LMX theory provides a model for exploring Millennial experiences to understand the

cohort’s perception of high-quality relationship development.

Nature of Study

Comprehension of Millennial perceptions within the development of leader-to-employee

relationships consists of shared beliefs and experiences (Moustakas, 1994; Van Manen, 2014).

Emerging themes within the exploration and interpretation of lived experiences provide meaning

and efficacy of social behaviors within relationship development. Although quantitative methods

draw upon statistical basis for understanding performance, information evaluate a defined

hypothetical structure (Yilmaz, 2013). Quantitative measures interfere with the comprehension

of the research phenomenon (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Maxwell, 2012). Through qualitative

exploration of Millennial experiences within their natural setting, information retrieved provides

a detailed description of participant responses. The data support a conceptual understanding of

leader-to-Millennial relationship development.

The interpretative phenomenological design contains steps needed to permit an authentic

exchange between researcher and participant, to explore lived experiences within leader-to-

Millennial relationship development. The interpretative phenomenological design was selected

and appropriate in that it allowed intensive discussions on the essence of the leader-to-employee

relational experience (Moustakas, 1994; Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). As defined by seminal

theorists of the phenomenological approach, experiences are a collection of perceptions, social

activities, upbringing, values, imaginations, and emotions (Husserl, 2002; Van Manen, 2014).

20

These components may provide an illustration of participant beliefs that aid in the

conceptualization of worldviews (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2014). In chapter 4, research

evaluations of purposeful samples retrieved from Millennial participants revealed the essence of

the leader-to-Millennial relationship phenomenon.

The collection of purposeful samples required a data collection strategy (Patton, 2002).

According to Vagel (2014), efficient data collection includes interviews conducted within the

participants’ natural setting. Small sample sizes within qualitative research are typical within the

representation of information-rich cases (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013). Patton confirmed that

documented guidelines for determining the amount of participants for evaluations are unfounded

in that the essence of qualitative research is explorative. Qualitative research methodologist

suggested that the population size range from 6 to 25 participants (Mason, 2010). I retrieved

purposeful samples from 20 Millennial participants to meet qualitative guidelines and

specifications (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Maxwell, 2012).

The selection of participants for the qualitative research sample is paramount to research

inquiry. The participant sample was sufficient, in that Millennial employees are of current

concern within management studies (Tulgan, 2011; Twenge et al., 2010). The consensus view

seems to be that; Millennial communication style may influence relationship development

(Murray, 2011; Rodriquez & Rodriguez, 2015). Researchers’ recommendations for further

investigation within leader-to-Millennial relationship development suggest that social attributes

may provide information to enable positive change within leadership systems (Chou, 2012; Parry

& Urwin, 2011).

21

The Millennial sample population consists of individuals ages 22 to 33. Evaluation of

leader-to-employee relationships includes the assessment of social exchanges between

participants and leadership (Haga, Graen, & Dansereu, 1974). According to Graen (2003),

relationship development occurs upon immediate interaction and continues as leaders and

members engage over time. Based on the information provided, participants selected for the

study had a minimum of one-year work experience with leaders and were active in the

relationship development process.

The interview process is an effective method to collect, evaluate and interpret participant

responses (Seidman, 2013). I began with face-to-face interviews. The interview contained

structured open-ended questions pertaining to the leader-to-Millennial employee relationship

(Bernard, 2013; Vagel, 2014). Audio recordings produced data for transcriptions and analysis of

participant responses (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data analysis strategy included methods

needed to harness a tacit understanding of the participants experience to reveal emerging themes

for interpretation (Maxwell, 2012; Van Manen, 2014).

Data transcription occurred after participant interviews. Next, I implemented a six-step

process for data analysis and interpretation of participant data (Klenke, 2008; Smith et al., 2009).

The steps are (a) member checking, (b) bracketing and reduction, (c) delineating units of

meaning, (d) horizontalization, (e) summation of individual interviews, and (f) interpretation of

themes and report of participants’ shared experience. Inspired by seminal authors Moustakas

(1994) and Hcyner (1999), Klenke's analytical approach assisted with effective reporting of

Millennial experiences. A line-by-line evaluative method facilitated a reflective and concise

description of participant’s experiences (Smith et al., 2009). Implementation of a reflective

22

system enabled data analysis of participant responses (Moustakas, 1994). Chapter 3 will provide

a clear and concise discussion of the methodological approach to (a) participant selection, (b)

recruitment, (c) data collection, (d) data analysis, and (e) data management processes within this

interpretative phenomenological approach of research inquiry. Chapter 4 will provide a corollary

of data sampling and analysis efforts.

Assumptions

Research exploration of Millennial participants’ experiences within leader-to-employee

relationship may provide a plethora of components that influence data collection and analysis.

For the purposes of this study, the assumptions are (a) Millennials have developed effective

relationships with leaders, (b) leaders within the leader-to-Millennial relationship are members of

older generational cohorts, (c) the organization has assisted with providing leadership with the

resources to assist with the development of leader-to-employee relationships, (d) the size of the

organization does not influence the development of leader-to-employee relationships. The size of

the organization is of particular importance to effective relationship development and allocation

of resources (Sung & Choi, 2014).

Organizational size may influence leader-to-Millennial social exchanges. Small businesses

incorporate decentralized structures in which upper executive officers communicate and delegate

tasks to management and subordinates (Cross & Funk, 2015; Salim & Sulaiman, 2011).

Millennials employed within smaller organizations may have access to owners, executives,

department managers, and co-workers within the organizational social system (Stam, Arzlanian

& Elfring, 2014).

23

Large organizations have greater distance between management levels, with increased

populated departments, and groups (Merat & Bo, 2013). The authors proposed that these

characteristics influence leaders’ span of control, whereby employees may lack effective social

exchanges needed for job performance. Size of organizations may provide the guidelines for

developing future research studies. The assumptions identified present the basis for drawing

purposeful samples for qualitative evaluation.

Limitations

The LMX theory incorporates both leader and employee social behaviors (Graen & Uhl-

Bien, 1995). The sole evaluation of Millennial employees’ perceptions of relationship

development is a limitation within the comprehension of LMX performance. I did not attempt to

assess leader-to-Millennial exchange performance. The LMX theory is a conceptual framework

needed to interpret Millennial experiences within leader-to-employee relationship development.

The employee perspective provided clarity regarding leader-to-member relationship development

(Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012; Kauppila, 2015). Leaders have a multidimensional overview of

relationship development that may marginalize employee needs and expectations (Duncan &

Herrera, 2014; Olsson, Hemlin, & Pousett, 2012). A qualitative report of Millennial employee

experiences supported the purposeful exploration and interpretation of leader-to-employee

relationship development.

According to Patton (2002), personal and professional experience is a limitation. Patton

affirmed that personal and professional experiences qualify the researcher’s attitudes toward the

participant. Attitudes developed through experiences may hinder effective data collection and

analysis. Developing methods to mitigate research limits is useful within qualitative method and

24

design (Maxwell, 2012). Vagel (2014) proposed that bracketing and member checking will

counteract activities that limit effective interpretation of participant experiences. Bracketing

assisted with suspending personal and professional knowledge of Millennials in the workplace

(Bernard, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). Journaling throughout the research process allowed the

bracketing of bias thoughts pertaining to participant's experiences (Van Manen, 2014). The

process was persistent and enabled an authentic narrative of participants’ experiences through

mindful activities that minimize bias and misinterpretations (Chan, Fung, & Chien, 2013; Sorsa,

Kiikkala, & Åstedt-Kurki, 2015).

Member checking of transcribed interviews ensures the authenticity of participants’ data

for analysis (Lincoln & Gruba, 1985; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014; Thomas & Maglivy,

2011). Participants’ review of transcribed interview data validates the responses and

terminologies used to describe their experience (Bevan, 2010; Tracy, 2010). These activities

increase creditability within data analysis and reporting (Seidman, 2013). In Chapter 3, I will

define the role of the researcher, ethical intentions toward authentic participant representation,

and transferability of qualitative methods. Chapter 4 will evaluate the sample collection and

analysis activities that allowed the authentic representation of Millennial experiences within

leader-to-employee relationship development.

Scope and Delimitations

The scope and delimitations of the study include information on relevant components that

stimulate the demand for examining Millennials’ perceptions of leader-to-employee relationship

development. The exploration of Millennials’ experiences contributes to leadership

understanding of concepts and exchanges that may influence relationship quality. Examination of

25

Millennial work values and attitudes toward job satisfaction introduce organizational resources

needed for positive social change (Choi, Kwon, & Kim, 2013; Haeger & Lingham, 2013; Wok &

Hashim, 2013). Although organizational resources assist with managing Millennials, leader-to-

employee relationship development remains obscure within the analysis and performance of

multigenerational organizations. Interpretative reports identify themes to broaden leaders’

perspectives, needed for positive social change within organizational learning and socialization

of young workforce members.

The boundaries of the study appear within the selection of Millennial participants as

opposed to the evaluation of both leader and Millennial employee. Evaluation of both leader and

member reports may generate a thorough understanding of relationship performance (Hu &

Liden, 2013; Imran & Fatima, 2013). The goal of this study was to understand and interpret the

Millennials’ perspective, to broaden leadership relational knowledge. The boundaries of the

study described, influence the implementation of future quantitative and qualitative methods

essential for knowledge acquirement.

Significance of Study

The significance of this qualitative phenomenological study is that it established the foundation

for developing resources for positive social change within learning and retention of Millennial

employees. Effective multigenerational organizations inspire knowledge transfer and sharing to

meet internal and external demands (Cahill & Sedrak, 2012; Heyler & Lee, 2012; Hillman,

2014). Exchanges that occur between generational cohorts produce relationships to assist with

learning and social advancement of organizational cultures (Mannheim, 1952; Zemeke et al.,

2013). Kaifi et al. (2012) proposed that generations working collectively with diverse

26

perspectives on workplace values stimulate social change within organizations. Cooperative

working relationships between generations provide mutual benefits to the organization, leaders,

and employees (Chi, Maier & Gursoy, 2013; Volmer et al., 2012). Despite generational

characterizations and conflicts, leadership practices should embrace generational diversity as a

vital component within effective organizational systems (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012; Colquitt et

al., 2013; Komives & Wagner, 2012).

According to Mannheim (1952), in order for positive social change to occur, generations

must interact, share, and assess information. The process enables the development of new values

and principles to meet social advancements (Kemmelmeier & Kühnen, 2012; Sorokin, 1959).

Providing an organizational environment to encourage generational social change is essential to

effective leadership systems (Gursoy et al., 2013; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Ongoing evaluations

of Millennial work values encourage the development of multigenerational leadership strategies

(Abaffy & Rubin, 2011; Chou, 2012; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Employee challenges impact

organizational social growth and leadership performance (Chou, 2012; Koweske, Rasch, Wiley,

2010; Thompson, 2012). On the basis of the literature currently available, it seems fair to suggest

that the newest working members challenge traditional leadership standards (Balda & Mora,

2011; Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012; Dannar, 2013).

Summary

Organizational changes that occur from generational diversity contribute to the

inquisition and analysis of social exchanges with leadership systems (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012;

Heng & Yazdanifard, 2013). In Chapter 1, I identified the importance of generational influence

on organizational social change. The presentation of current and seminal research assisted with

27

defining generational characterizations needed to understand current concerns toward Millennial

work values and social behaviors (Chi et al., 2013; Hillman, 2014; Mannheim, 1952).

Researchers suggested that distinctions influence social behaviors and contribute to the

development of innovative leadership practices (Gilbert, 2011; Schyns, Tymon, Keifer,

Kerschreiter, 2013). The evaluation of literature supported the need for further investigation of

leader-to-Millennial relationship development (Chaudhauri & Gosh; Graen & Grace, 2015).

Chou (2012) proposed that alternative leadership system might assist with managing Millennials.

According to Twenge (2007), Millennials’ psychological characteristics influence their

demands for frequent and coherent organizational engagements. Leadership communications of

job-related tasks help Millennial learning and organizational development (Farrell & Hurt, 2014;

Haeger & Lingham, 2013). Minimal research is found that interprets the Millennial perspective

toward leader-to-employee communications. Misconceptions may occur within leadership

system practices and policies that lack the knowledge and resources to address the current

organizational environment (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Chi et al., 2013). Organizational

awareness of Millennial perceptions will provide knowledge for leadership system applications

and resources. The literature review in Chapter 2 is an assessment of seminal and current

literature of the Millennial generation’s socialization within organizational relationship

development.

28

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Millennial work relations aid in organizational and social development. The

establishment of work relationships to exchange knowledge and values enables organizations to

implement strategies to meet socioeconomic challenges (Agarwal, 2015; Roodin & Mendelson,

2013). The evaluation of literature identified researchers’ concerns regarding Millennial

socialization as it relates to the development of effective organizational relationships (Balda &

Mora, 2011; Gerhardt, 2014). The general organizational problem is managements’ inability to

increase Millennial retention (Farell & Hurt, 2014; Tulgan, 2011). According to Graen and

Schiemann (2013), as the Millennial generation acquire professional roles, changes within

traditional social systems must occur. These social changes within organizational systems create

an impending dilemma within the availability of resources needed to retain and educate

Millennial employees (Hadar, 2013; Kuyken, 2012; Starks, 2013).

The purpose of this qualitative interpretative phenomenological study is to explore

Millennial employees’ experiences within leader to millennial relationship development. The

management of three generations: Boomer, Generation X, and Millennial working together

within the current workforce contribute to the reevaluation of effective leadership systems to

meet diverse social and environmental changes (Heyler & Lee, 2012; Pan et al., 2012). Due to

lack of effective social interactions, organizations face significant losses within the

communication of knowledge and information required to meet internal and external demands

(Higo & Khan, 2015; Sabri, Haron, Jamil, & Ibrahim, 2014). Older employees who may occupy

senior level positions have increased knowledge and experience need for Millennial

organizational development (DeFranco & Schmidgall, 2014). Generational perceptions and

29

stereotypes deter effective knowledge sharing needed for organizational learning and retention

(Chi et al., 2013; Hines & Carbone, 2013; North & Fiske, 2015).

Uncertainties about Millennial employees’ work skills and values exist and dissuade

leader affiliative behaviors (Arnett, 2013; Ng et al., 2012). Todd (2014) identified that

inconsistencies exist between senior management’s expectations and actual Millennial

performance. Researchers’ determined that Millennials face dilemmas in the comprehension of

tasks delegated, as well as lack of tacit knowledge that is necessary to meet role demands (Baker,

2013; Sabri et al., 2014). Tacit knowledge is a form of social discernment that aid in personal

and professional development (Park, Vertinsky, & Becerra, 2015). Management reports have

shown that researchers perceive leaders as withholding knowledge due to generational

stereotypes and misconceptions of work roles and communications (Heng & Yazdanifard, 2013;

Martin & Gentry, 2011; Merriweather & Morgan, 2013). The lack of sufficient social exchanges

within organizations results in (a) conflict, (b) decreased job satisfaction, (c) uncertainty, and (d)

lack of commitment (Loi, Chan, & Lam, 2014; Standifer, Lester, Schultz, & Windsor, 2013;

Zhou & Shi, 2014). The emanation of inadequate relational exchanges disrupt the development

of social systems needed for organizations to navigate internal and external challenges (Osman,

& Nahar, 2015; Pan et al., 2012).

First, I will describe the literature search strategies including (a) databases searched, (b)

identification of key terms, and (c) iterative searches. Next, the theoretical framework is

described including (a) LMX elements, (b) relationship development, and (c) significance of

LMX theory. I will include an examination and synthesis of research literature pertinent to

current perceptions of Millennials within organizations. The gap in research section will contain

30

the vacancies that exist within the comprehension of leader-to-Millennial relationship

development. Finally, I provide a summary of the literature on leader-to-Millennial relationship

development within multigenerational leadership systems.

Literature Search Strategy

The literature search strategy is the germane approach implemented to retrieve

information regarding research theory and leader-to-Millennial relationship development. The

exploration and selection of relevant information began with searches through several databases

for peer-reviewed articles, books, and dissertations. These databases included the following:

ABI/Inform, Business Source Complete, Ebscohost, PsychInfo, Sage Publications, and Science

Direct. Peer-reviewed literature encompassed the collaboration of management studies within

the scope of leadership, Millennial work values, and LMX theory.

Millennials are beginning to emerge into the workplace which may explain the lack of

empirical evaluation of work relational performance within management studies (Deery & Leo,

2015; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Murray, 2011). The literature search contained exhaustive efforts to

retrieve information on the Millennial generation’s work values, organizational relationships, and

LMX theory. The literature search provided a modest selection of management studies and trade

articles that refer to Millennial social behaviors within organizational systems. Results were

produced using the appropriate keywords and phrases exploring generational characterizations

within management, with specific identifiers to provide information regarding the Millennial

cohort.

I used the following keywords and phrases: generation, generational differences,

Millennials, and Millennial socialization. For the library database search on the LMX, the

31

following keywords and phrases were used: dyadic leadership, dyadic relationship, leader-to-

member exchange theory, LMX theory, role theory, social exchange relationship, and vertical

dyad linkage theory. Literature evaluation of the exchange theory inspired further exploration

into the perceptions and behavior of effective leader-to-employee relationships. Keywords used

within the preliminary research of the LMX theory provided several additional key terms for the

conceptual development of this research, as follows: psychological contract, reciprocity, trust,

and employee role development. Millennial perceptions of leader-to-employee directed literature

searches on topics involving the cohort’s influence on work relationship performance. Thus,

phrases used are as follows: Millennial and relationship development, Millennials and work

attitudes, leader perceptions and Millennials, multigenerational relationship development, and

Millennial influence on organizational change.

Theoretical Foundation

The theoretical foundation in qualitative research provides a concept or theory as a basis

for further investigation (Vagel, 2014). The theoretical framework of research study offers a

description of the researcher’s cognitive approach (Maxwell, 2012). The LMX theory supports

the leader-to-Millennial conceptual schematic. The social exchanges that occur between leader

and employee influence the quality of relationship development within the workplace (Ertürk &

Vurgun; 2015; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Zhou & Shi, 2014). Seminal and current research

presented in this section contains information regarding the management of theory within the

understanding and exploration of the Millennial experience within current leader-to-employee

relationships.

32

Seminal authors of the LMX theory agreed that leaders form different relationships with

individual members within an organizational group (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Liden & Graen,

1980). The researchers suggested that leaders delegate responsibilities based on member skill

sets and work attitudes (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Haga et al., 1974). Leaders develop reciprocal

relationships with employees who exhibit reliable and trustworthy behaviors (Humborstad &

Kuvaas, 2013; Waters, Bortree, & Tindall, 2013). These factors may also contribute to varying

levels of employee responsibilities.

More recently, researchers have found that leaders’ perceptions of employee limitations

minimize meaningful role delegation practices (Jones & Shah, 2015; Sue-Chan, Au, & Hackett,

2012). As a result, employees with minimal responsibilities may lack the social interactions

needed to acquire and retain work knowledge (Hau, Kim, Lee, & Kim, 2013; Zhang et al., 2012).

The roles formed within the leader-to-employee relationship are defined within the socialization

process and provide the basis for organizational learning (Jokisaari, 2013; Madlock & Chory,

2013). The following is the evaluation of the LMX exchange (a) elements, (b) relationship

development, and (c) significance of the theory; to present a literature based evaluation of the

conceptual application and rationale.

The Roles of LMX Elements

According to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), the LMX elements include leader, employee,

and the exchange platform. LMX elements interlock and react to enable leader decision-making

and collective goal achievement (Humborstad & Kuvas, 2013; Kim & Schachter, 2013). LMX

activities aid in the performance of hierarchical structures. The activities that occur within the

exchanges between leader and member reinforce inter-office attitudes and affiliative behaviors

33

(Osman & Nahar, 2015 ; Zhou & Shi, 2014). For this reason, a thorough evaluation of the LMX

elements provides a fundamental understanding of roles and interactions that may occur within


Leader element. Leaders are organizational representatives and serve as role models and

agents of change (Bass & Bass, 2009; Grandia, 2015). Leadership behaviors assist with the

development of organizational expectations that influence job performance (Ertürk & Vurgun,

2015; Imran & Fatima, 2013). Hocine & Zhang (2014) affirmed that leaders’ provide motivation,

guidance, and resources that build member morale required to complete organizational

initiatives. Top, Akdere, Tarcan (2015) reported leaders’ impact member job satisfaction and

commitment. Researchers’ show that leadership quality and support, positively influenced

employee retention and organizational performance (Carter et al., 2013; Gkorezis, 2015; Sut,

Christina & Dysvik, 2014). Leaders initiate role making and relationship development through a

series of exchanges that create shared organizational values (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995;

Johnson, 2014). Efficient social exchanges aid in leader-to-member relationship development

(Biao & Shuping, 2014; Jokisarri, 2013; Kelley & Bisel, 2014).

Leaders’ perceptions of member attitudinal similarity influence the exchange quality and

contribute to efficient social exchanges (Jackson & Johnson, 2012; Volmer, Niessen, Spurk,

Linz, & Abele, 2011; Zhang et al., 2012). According to Phillips and Bedeian (1994), leader

interpersonal requirements guide in-group member selection. The authors proposed that leaders

may choose members with similar goals. Experienced leaders may select members who possess

qualities and skills that complement their leadership style (Mead & Maner, 2012; Zhang, Wang,

Shi, 2012 ). Liang-Chieh & Wen-Ching (2015) further explain that leaders form different

34

relationships with members based on personality and performance. Employee agreeableness

supports role development and job satisfaction, in that these positive behaviors facilitate leaders’

perceptions and decision-making (Gürkan & Aktaş, 2014; Imran & Fatima, 2013).

Member element. Although leadership plays a critical role in the development of high

performing relationships, members assume equal responsibility within the quality of the dyadic

exchanges (Kim & Schachter, 2015; Tee, Ashkanasy, & Paulsen, 2013; Zhang et al., 2012).

Member receptivity, agreeableness, and high-quality performance contribute to the exchange

process (Imran & Fatima, 2013; Liang-Chieh & Wen-Ching, 2015). These member behaviors

positively influence leaders’ attitudes (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014; Volmer et al.,

2011;). Upward influence is a term used to describe the effect members have leadership

behaviors (Dockery &Steiner,1990; Kassing & Kava, 2013). Upward influence occurs when

members motivate leaders through positive feedback, personality characteristics, and

complementary skills (Chaturvedi & Srivastava, 2014; Luu; 2012; Steizel & Rimbau-Gilabert,

2013). As a result, leaders increase members’ job autonomy (Buch, Dysvik, Kuvaas, & Nerstad,

2014; Hocine & Zhang, 2014; Volmer et al., 2012).

Member performance enforces leader’s decision-making (Tee et al., 2013; Uhl-Bien,

Riggio, Lowe & Carsten, 2014). The quality and rate in which member responds and execute

tasks influence leadership trust in the delegation of future roles (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993;

Shantz, Alfes, Truss, & Soane, 2013). Members provide feedback through verbal and

performance measures that identify organizational triumphs and stressors (Chaturvedi &

Srivastava, 2014; Harris, Li, & Kirkman, 2014). The interactions between leader and member

35

qualify communication and development of inter-office roles that contribute to organizational

goal achievement (Johnson, 2014; Madlock & Chory, 2013; Richards & Hackett, 2012).

Exchange element. The exchange element incorporates several dimensions that

contribute to effective hierarchical structures (Sheer, 2014; Susskind, Odom-Reed, & Viccari,

2011). Susskind et al. determined that these dimensions include (a) leader and member

interactions, (b) leader expectations toward employee, (c) employee expectation towards leader,

(d) employee satisfaction, and (e) organizational resources. Leader-to-member interactions and

expectations influence role development (Shantz et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2012). As leaders

become familiar with employee skills and values they form trustworthy relationships

(Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013; Liden & Graen, 1980). Within these types of relationships,

employees receive greater responsibility and learning opportunities (Kelley, Bisel, 2014; Schilke

& Cook, 2013; Sue-chan et al., 2012). Researchers proposed that members experience greater

job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Loi et al., 2014; Wang, Fang, Qureshi, &

Janssen, 2015).

Leader-to-member exchanges form alliances needed for the sharing and collaboration of

knowledge and skills (Sheer, 2014; Zhang et al., 2012). The exchanges that occur from the time

of initial interaction throughout member tenure contribute to the alignment of relationship goals

(Conway & Shapiro, 2012; Dockery & Steiner, 1990). Consistent conversations and engagement

practices allow leader and member to access skills and resources to meet organizational demands

(Al-Jubari, 2014; Alfes, Shantz, Truss, & Soane, 2012; Mohd Soieb, Othman, & D’Silva, 2013).

Frequent social interactions may strengthen high-quality relationship development.

36

LMX and Relationship Development

The activities between leader and member create and maintain organizational inter-

dependence within a three stage process, whereby mutual trust and reciprocity is formed (Caimo

& Lomi, 2014; Hau et al., 2013). Figure 2 is a visual example I constructed for the purpose of

this study to provide a conceptual understanding of the relationship development process. The

process includes (a) role-making, (b) role-taking, and (c) role-routinization (Dienesch & Liden,

1986; Graen, 2003; Scandura & Graen, 1984).

Figure 2. LMX and relationship development. The leader-to-member relationship development

process includes the leader as the role maker and member as the role taker (Dienesch & Liden,

1986; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Shantz et al., 2013). The development process is a system of

events, which depending on leader task delegation and member performance; contribute to the

development of future roles and advancement. These leader-to-member activities assist with

relationship quality (Chaudry & Tekleab, 2013).

37

Role-making. Researchers have identified the role-making process as a series of

continual performance evaluations (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Johnson, 2014). In this stage,

leaders delegate responsibilities to assess member attitudes and skills. These performance

measures affect the delegation of future tasks and career advancement (Hu & Liden, 2013;

Michael, 2014). If a member fails to execute tasks, the leader may cease to extend challenging

roles or responsibilities (Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013; Imran & Fatima, 2013; Sue-Chan et al.,

2012). Leaders’ decision-making practices minimize the risk of giving tasks to members who

lack the skills for effective execution (Gürkan & Aktaş, 2014; Hinojosa et al., 2014).

Role-taking. The second stage of relationship development occurs during the initial

interaction between leader and member (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Zhang et al., 2012). In this

stage, member ability, affect, and feedback increase leader trust needed for efficient decision-

making and role development (Sue-Chan et al., 2012). Shantz et al. (2013) proposed that member

engagement within role-taking mediate job satisfaction and commitment. During this period,

leaders measure member skills and initiative behaviors for future roles. As a result, leaders build

trust within member role negotiations (Kelley & Bisel, 2014; Schilke & Cook, 2013).

Role routinization. The third stage of relationship development includes the

establishment of roles and guidelines that assist with the development of reciprocal behaviors

and mutual goal achievement (Scandura & Graen, 1984). The formation of roles and guidelines

are routines created during successful role making and taking practices. The social exchange

between leader and member becomes a core component within the maintenance of effective

routine behaviors (Chaudry & Tekleab, 2013; Madlock & Chory, 2014). Leaders’

communications of tasks, values, and performance measurements provide a pivotal function in

38

establishing organizational habits (Gkorezis et al., 2015; Jian & Dalisay, 2015; Michael, 2014).

Researchers seem to validate the view that engagement practices between leader and member

stimulate interdependence and shared organizational values (Al-Jubari, 2014; Ozcelik, 2015;

Saunders & Tiwari, 2014).

Significance of the LMX Theory

The research method and design benefits from the use of the LMX theory based on the

premise, that socialization is critical within the development of high-quality leader-to-Millennial

relationships. Researchers identified the types of exchanges that influence relationship

development and the relevance of leader-to-member exchanges within efficient organizational

social systems (Chaudry & Tekleab, 2013; Shantz et al., 2013). The use of the LMX theory

provides a conceptual structure to guide data collection and analysis of Millennial employee

responses to questions that encompass (a) relationship development, (b) role development

practices, (c) task delegation practices, and (d) relationship quality. The information retrieved

from the interpretation and analysis of Millennial employee experiences help advance

evaluations of high-quality leader-to-Millennial relationship development.

Literature Review of Millennials in Organizations

The following evaluation of current research will assist with understanding current

perceptions of Millennials within the workplace that may control the quality of leadership

systems. The information contains the evaluation of Millennials within management literature as

it pertains to (a) traditional hierarchical structures, (b) communications and social skills, (c)

learning and knowledge acquirement, (d) leadership preferences, and (e) organizational

commitment.

39

Millennials and Traditional Hierarchical Structures

Leader perceptions of Millennial behaviors toward relationship development within

hierarchical structures have resulted in a lack of leader affiliative behaviors in leadership systems

(Corgnet, Gonzalez, & Mateo, 2015; Lester, Standifer, Schultz, & Windsor, 2012; Wok &

Hashim, 2013). Leader affiliative behaviors are receptive to new ideas and shared control,

whereby leaders create an environment to enhance communications for active collaboration of

skills and knowledge (Ganon, Vough, & Nickerson, 2012; Kaur, 2013). The lack of leader

affiliative practices may stem from generational perceptions (North & Fiske, 2015; Schullery,

2013; Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2014). Millennial social practices are perceived as leadership

system deterrents (Hilman, 2014; Teclaw et al., 2014).

Millennials are blind to hierarchical norms that limit their ability to obtain organizational

knowledge (Brown, Thomas, & Bosselman, 2015; Lyons, Schweitzer, & Ng, 2015). Hershatter

and Epstein (2010) affirmed that Millennials will gain information from peers and managers

outside of their department or group. Although the generational cohort exudes confidence within

the gathering and processing of information, leaders often perceive this behavior as arrogant and

contradictory to high-performing leadership systems (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2014 ; Haeger

& Lingham, 2013). Leader negative perceptions hinder social exchange quality (Farr-Wharton,

Brunetto, & Shacklock, 2012; Gursoy et al., 2013). The absence of high-quality social exchanges

between leader and Millennial employee may have a direct impact on knowledge sharing

required for organizational learning and retention (Chou, 2012; Graen & Grace, 2015; Sabri et

al., 2014).

40

Millennial behaviors toward traditional leader exchanges may affect the quality of leader-

to-employee relationship development (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; Uelmen, 2013). A decrease

of fluent social exchanges regarding work roles and values contravene knowledge acquirement

and professional development (Graen & Schiemann, 2013; Hadar, 2013). Hesitant social

activities stagnate leader and management systems that may result in ineffective organizational

change practices and economic loss (Cummings et al., 2013; Eversole et al., 2014). Millennial

employees may experience difficulty in building active social networks to acquire organizational

knowledge. Chou (2012) proposed that Millennials are effective within teams and possess the

necessary qualities for building productive reciprocal relations. These contrasting arguments

stimulate the exploration of Millennial employee experiences within professional relationships

with leaders to understand the concepts and practices needed to advance multi-generational

leadership systems.

Millennial work attitudes and generational characteristics prompt organizational social

changes within traditional hierarchical structures (Gursoy et al., 2013; Hershatter & Epstein,

2010; Holt et al., 2012). Top-down communications of information and task delegation are

standard methods of these types of organizational structures (Lichtenstein et al., 2006). Shared

information, according to organizational protocol, identifies upper managers as the primary

source of information filtration for individual and collective performance (Arshad et al., 2014;

Flink, 2015; Li, Shang, Liu, Xi, 2014). The traditional hierarchical structure provides the

guidelines needed for cultural development and knowledge sharing (Bass & Bass, 2009; Day,

2014; Tams, 2013). The comprehension of Millennials’ perceptions toward these work

41

environments influences the direction and performance of human resource management

(Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012; Graybill, 2014).

In-depth analysis of Millennials’ work values identified discrepant cases and contexts

regarding traditional hierarchical structures. Researchers’ proposed that Millennials lack

tolerance within traditional hierarchical structures (Haeger & Lingham, 2013; Hershatter &

Epstein, 2010; Twenge et al., 2010). Chou (2012) affirmed that Millennials work best in an

environment that allows flexibility within working conditions that promote knowledge sharing;

whereby strict hierarchical guidelines may minimize task effectiveness. Trees (2015) determined

that Millennials performed adequately within team environments with frequent feedback from

leadership. Variations in researchers’ proposals contribute to the following literature evaluation

of Millennial’s behaviors within leader-to-employee social exchanges.

Millennial employees’ expectations may influence change within hierarchical system

practices. Balda and Mora (2011) proposed that Millennial respond adversely to power distance

that limit the exchange of information. The researchers identified that the cohort prefers close

bidirectional communications that reinforce learning and knowledge sharing. In this type of

structure, leaders and employees work together, interchanging ideas to solve work-related

dilemmas (Chou, 2012; Kodatt, 2009; Lam, Xu, & Chan, 2015). Millennial communications

preferences indicate that the cohort may require a distinct management structure. Pavett (2012)

suggested that Millennials are supportive of organizations that implement executive controls.

Kuhl (2014) explained that Millennials expect real-time feedback, job guidelines, and

performance measures for career development.

42

According to Thompson and Gregory (2012), Millennials’ values toward the quality of

leader collaborative exchanges may contribute to effective hierarchical practices. Millennials

perceive collaborative exchanges as a means to gain experience and tacit knowledge (Bremer,

Andersson, & Carlsson, 2013; Ryan & O'Connor, 2013). Gaining experience assists with career

development in that acquiring organizational knowledge increases marketability (Maxwell &

Broadbridge, 2014; O’Connor, 2015). Millennials show increased job satisfactions within

organizations with increased learning opportunities found in mentoring and training resources

(Kaifi et al., 2012; Parry & Urwin, 2011).

Millennials learn and develop organizational skills from leadership (Gosh, 2014; Samadi

et al., 2015). Social exchanges between leader and member enable knowledge sharing and

decision-making needed for organizational development (Hadar, 2013; Jiang & Liu, 2015; Park

& Gursoy, 2012). Researchers' affirmed that Millennials require distinct leadership practices for

effective individual and collective performance (Graen & Grace, 2015; Ng et al., 2012;

Thompson & Gregory, 2012). Quantitative analysis of generational differences within leadership

preferences identified minor dissimilarities (Koweske et al., 2010). Interpretation of Millennials’

shared experiences broaden management knowledge within leader-to-employee social exchanges

that enable organizational learning and development.

Millennials’ Communication and Socialization Skills

The socialization of Millennials within organizations impact management systems (Chou,

2012; Parry & Urwin, 2011). Millennials’ communications behaviors influence change within

leadership systems (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Gibson & Sodeman, 2014). Periodic meetings

and discussions regarding work direction and performance motivate and retain young

43

professionals (Hays, 2014; Ng et al., 2012). The communications approach differs from

traditional methods that provide performance reviews on a monthly, semi-annual or annual basis

(Beane-Katner, 2014; Westerman et al., 2012). Perceptions of differing communications patterns

contribute to researchers’ beliefs that organizational change is needed within the advancement of

multigenerational leadership systems (Fenzel, 2013; Hendricks & Cope, 2013).

Leaders must provide a platform for effective communication of organizational goals

(Kupritz & Cowell, 2011; Michael, 2014). Hershatter and Epstein (2010) evaluation of university

students identified that Millennials require communication of deadlines and systematic methods

for academic goal achievements. The authors reported that professors received negative

performance reviews from students due to lack of communications and ineffective academic

measurements. Tulgan (2011) and Marcinkus (2012) identified that Millennials needed

consistent leadership exchanges. Their reports revealed that these routine activities supported

learning and commitment behaviors. Forecasts of an imminent change in the demands of

emerging employees, support further evaluation of Millennials’ perceptions towards leader-to-

employee communications within the workplace.

Millennials’ Learning and Knowledge Acquirement

Millennials gain and process information differently in comparison to older generations

due to the rapid increase of technological resources available in the home, academic, and work

environment (Howe & Strauss, 2009; Murray, 2011). Millennial dependence on computer

sources and social networks contribute to their methods of knowledge acquirement (Balda &

Mora, 2011; Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013; Sinha & Rauscher, 2014). Palfrey and Gasser

(2008) proposed that the Millennials’ learning method incorporates three stages of knowledge

44

processing: (a) gazing, trawling thought large groups of information; (b) deep diving,

examination within specific areas of interests that allows the investigation of content; and (c)

feedback loop, sharing information gathered with personal and professional peers. Understanding

Millennial knowledge processing may help with research assessments and analysis of participant

shared experiences, in that organizational learning affects both social and work performance

(Hadar, 2013; Sung & Choi, 2014).

According to Balda and Mora (2011) and Ghosh (2014), knowledge is relational. The

amount shared, processed, and transformed is a reflection of the authorization of social

interactive practices. The current challenge faced by organizations is developing

interrelationships to harness Millennials’ skills and attributes (Eversole et al., 2012; Holt et al.,

2012; Petroulas et al., 2010). Social interactive practices ensure that organizational values are

absorbed to execute competitive demands (Hillman, 2014; Karatepe, 2013). Researchers

affirmed that leaders assist with Millennial employee learning through constructive

organizational social experiences (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Dugan,

Bohle, Woelker, & Cooney, 2014). Evaluation of Millennials’ social experiences may contribute

to organizational learning. Researchers suggested that engaging in daily activities and

challenges, increases knowledge and role development (Bremer et al., 2013; Kempster & Parry,

2014; Thompson, 2013).

Millennials’ Leadership Preferences

The Millennial generation provides a core component within current examinations of

future leadership practices (Howe & Strauss, 2009; Twenge, 2013). Millennials expect a fluid

dispersion of ideas and information that may challenge leadership methods used to share

45

knowledge (Gerhardt, 2014; Farrell & Hurt, 2014). The incorporation of decentralized methods

of knowledge sharing, within a traditional hierarchical structure, result in inter-office conflicts

(Carpenter & de Charon, 2014; Rodriguez & Rodriguez, 2015; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010;

Petroulas et al., 2010). Millennials’ expectations toward leadership methods can obscure

relational effectiveness (Malik & Khera, 2014). Millennial employees’ demands for collaborative

leadership compromise traditional forms of task delegation and role development practices

(Graybill, 2014; Gursoy et al., 2013). Millennials may require guiding leader behaviors

(Johnston, 2013). These leadership practices may deter older employees’ work performance

(Coulter & Faulkner, 2014; Hillman, 2014).

Researchers confirmed that the lack of understanding of generational views of leadership

creates conflict (Hershatter & Epstein; 2010; Lyons & Kuron, 2015; Maier, Tavanti, Bombard,

Gentile, & Bradford, 2015). Evaluation of generational leadership preferences assists with

understanding perceptions of forecast organizational changes. Kodatt (2009) identified a

significant difference within leadership preferences of generational cohorts. Manova analysis of

six dimensions of leadership across three generations identified that Millennials preferred

participative leadership (m=4.82) practices in comparison to Generation X (m=4.56) and Baby

Boomers (m=4.42). Participative leadership includes employees within the delegation and

decision- making process (Day, 2014). Day defines team orientated leadership as the practices

that assist with group performance, whereby leaders delegate a project or task to a group. Group

collaborations give members’ decision-making power needed for project or task completion

(Bass & Bass, 2009; Braun, Peusi, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013; Payton, 2015).

46

Millennials value professional relationships that encourage the engagement of ideas and

concepts (Gilbert, 2011; Gilley et al., 2015). These values differ from previous generations

(Kodatt, 2009; Twenge et al., 2010). Researchers of discerning study reports show that there are

minimal differences between generational perceptions of effective leadership practices (Deal,

Stawiski, Graves, Gentry, Weber, & Ruderman, 2013; Mencl & Lester, 2014; Kowske et al.,

2010). The disquisition of generational differences suggests that further studies may broaden

management understanding of Millennials’ perceptions of leadership systems. The exploration of

Millennials’ working relationships provides a framework for future evaluations and

measurements of leadership preferences.

Millennials and Retention

The term job-hopping is pervasive within current evaluations of Millennials (Case,

Guan, & Paris, 2014; Hagel, 2014; McGinnis-Johnson & Ng, 2015). Millennials frequent

changes in employment contribute to researchers’ perceptions that the cohort lack organizational

commitment (Ozcelik, 2015; Thompson & Gregory, 2012; Umamaheswari & Krishnan, 2015).

According to Keeter and Taylor (2010), 57% of the Millennial research population will seek new

job opportunities in the future. The survey information supports the claim that Millennials are

prone to seek a variety of employment opportunities (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012; Petroulas et al.,

2010). As a result, leaders restrain affiliative behaviors needed for high-quality relationship

development (Gallicano et al., 2012; Thompson & Gregory, 2012).

While it may seem that Millennials tend to change jobs frequently, Kowske et al. (2010)

identified that the cohort have higher levels (p<0.05) of organizational and job satisfaction than

Boomer and Generation X. Sanfrey, Hollands, & Gantt (2013) asserted that Millennials work

47

well in a cohesive and supportive environment that assists with increased commitment attitudes

toward their employers. According to Gilbert (2011), organizations must produce methods of

building alternative management practices to increase retention. Leadership faces the challenge

of implementing change initiatives that will create value-driven relationships to increase

Millennial employees’ commitment behaviors (Espinoza, 2015; Ozcelik, 2015; Winter &

Jackson, 2014).

Researchers identified that Millennial employees’ attitudes towards work-life balance and

career development, influence commitment behaviors (Ehrhart, Mayer, Ziegert, 2012; Kowske et

al., 2010). According to Twenge and Campbell (2008), Millennials increasing demand for work-

life balance determine their career choices and guide organizational commitment behaviors.

Millennials pursue job opportunities that will allow them to balance both personal and

professional endeavors (Gilley et al., 2015; Howe & Strauss, 2009; Zemke et al., 2013).

Millennials prefer not to work extended hours to gain organizational recognition (Deery & Jago,

2015). Millennial employee demands have resulted in organizational change initiatives within

work cultures (Graen & Grace, 2015; Winter & Jackson, 2015).

Millennials’ understanding of task assignments and employers’ responsibility toward

career advancement increase commitment (Chien & Lin, 2012). Employee job description and

performance measures may guide organizational behaviors (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Kuron

et al., 2015; Jang & Maghelal, 2015). Leadership practices that engage Millennial employees

support the development of high-quality relationships (Chou, 2012; Karanges, Johnston,

Beatson, & Lings, 2015). Lack of leadership management within task and role development,

48

contribute to absenteeism, employee conflicts, and Millennial turnovers (Gursoy et al., 2013;

Park & Gursoy, 2012).

The psychological contract contains the responsibilities of the organization and

employees (Chaudry & Tekleab, 2013; Erkutlu & Chafra, 2013). Both organizational and

member expectations are satisfied and assist with building a synergistic work environment

(Chien & Lin, 2012; Kauppila, 2015; Windle & von Treuer, 2014). Ng, Feldman, and Butts

(2013) affirmed that the alignment of leader and Millennial employee goals the psychological

contract influenced organizational retention. Although the organization provides resources and

compensation, leaders are critical to goal achievement (Metcalf & Benn, 2013; Vermeeren,

Kuipers, & Steijn, 2014). Leaders serve as the administrator of resources that motivate and guide

employees toward meeting contractual demands (Jiang & Liu, 2015).

The initial interaction between leader and employee establish guidelines and expectations

within the psychological contract (Osman & Nahar, 2015; Smissen, Schalk, & Freese, 2013).

Leader expectations are formed during recruitment and provide the components for employee

retention as well as contribute to the development of high-quality leader-to-member exchanges

(Chien & Lin, 2012; Zhang et al., 2012). Employees rely on the psychological contract as a basis

for developing organizational values and trust that stimulate commitment behaviors (Mead &

Manner, 2012; Ng et al., 2013).

Festing and Schafer (2014) suggested that differences within generational understanding

of leader-to-employee expectations effect the terms of the psychological contract. Boomer and

Generation X expectations contributed to transactional exchanges between leader and employees

(Cummings et al., 2013; Kelan, 2014). Amayah and Gedro (2014) proposed that employees’

49

work performance corresponded with monetary compensation and career advancement. Hard

work and long hours showed motivation and commitment to organizational goal achievement

(Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Young, Sturts, Ross, & Kim, 2013). Boomers, in particular, expected

organizational compensation, and career stability in exchange for longevity (Costanza, Badger,

Fraser, Servert, & Gade, 2012; Howe & Strauss, 2009).

According to Twenge (2007), Millennials’ perceptions toward the lack of security within

corporate employment practices may contribute to the construction of psychological contracts.

Millennials’ reaction to corporate layoffs of their parents may influence work values toward

organizational commitment (Festings & Schafer, 2014; Lub, Bal, Blomme, & Schalk, 2015).

Millennial’s professional achievements are not based on tenure. Thompson (2013) identified that

the cohort’s career goals include finding meaningful work and increasing learning opportunities.

Millennials believe that working within a variety of organizations assist with career diversity

(Hagel, 2014; Ng et al., 2012). Consistent and informed communications within organizations

assist with the alignment of Millennial career and learning expectations. Routine

communications minimize leader and employee behaviors that may derail performance of

leadership systems and retention efforts (Jian & Dalisay, 2015; Michael, 2014; Malik & Khera,

2014).

The review of management literature revealed that Millennials require more from

leadership systems (Cahill & Sedrak, 2012; Lub et al., 2015). Kaifi et al. (2012) suggested that

Millennials demand consistent feedback with managers. Hershatter and Epstein (2010) proposed

that members of the cohort process information differently. Leaders within leadership systems,

encounter communications conflicts within the delegation of work-related tasks and

50

organizational practices (Flink, 2015; Jian & Dalisay, 2015). Millennial perceptions of leader-to-

employee relationship development broaden research understanding of practices needed for

organizational learning and retention within multigenerational leadership systems.

Gap in Research

I implemented the interpretative phenomenological design to address the gap in the

literature, which is the deficit in research understanding of leader-to-Millennial relationship

development within effective performance of multigenerational organizations. Current

knowledge of Millennials within organizational systems enables meaningful discussions of

Millennials impact on organizational change (Rodriguez & Rodriguez, 2015; Winter & Jackson,

2014). Evaluations of Millennials’ characteristics and work values dominate management

research (Much et al., 2014; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Howe & Straus, 2009). Leaders of the

organizations studied, have started making changes to meet cohort values toward work-life

balance and career development (Choi et al., 2013; Ehrhart et al., 2012; Murray, 2011).

Researchers have suggested that organizations are gaining a new perspective toward embracing

Millennials’ professional expectations (Kuhl, 2014; Ogbeide et al., 2013). However, managers

have identified conflicts within the cohort’s work values that influence organizational learning

and retention (Chou, 2012; Graen & Grace, 2015; McMillan, Chen, Richard, & Bhuian, 2012).

Millennials require creative engagement practices to assist with organizational goal

alignment (Anantatmula & Shrivastav, 2012; Gilbert, 2011). Hershatter and Epstein (2010)

proposed that Millennials demand immediate attention that may deter collective goal

achievement. Researchers’ evaluation of generational behaviors traits suggested that in

comparison to prior generations, Millennials show an increase in self-esteem and narcissist

51

behaviors (Twenge & Campbell, 2010). Westerman et al. (2012) defined narcissi behaviors as

increased sensitivity to professional criticism, inordinately competitive, and self-centered. These

behaviors influence Millennials’ social and knowledge processing within group and may

contribute to communications challenges (Cain, Romanelli, & Smith, 2012; Fenzel, 2013).

Generational differences within workplace values influence the quality of leader-to-

employee collective behaviors (Roodin & Mendelson, 2013; Standifer et al., 2013). Twenge and

Campbell (2008) identified that the Millennial cohort’s system of beliefs may influence the

reciprocal exchange that occurs between leader and employee. Researchers identified that

generational characteristics have minimal influence on organizational structure and practices

(Mencl & Lester, 2014; Koweske et al., 2010; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). A point often overlooked,

is that the Millennial employee population is increasing (Graen & Grace, 2015). The Millennial

employee population will continue to grow, as the youngest members finish high school, attend

college, and enter the workplace (Holt et al., 2012; Kuhl, 2014; Twenge, 2008). For this reason,

Millennial generational studies support the claim that the emergence of new work values and

behaviors provoke organizational social change (Gallicano et al., 2012; Parry & Urwin, 2011;

Winter & Jackson, 2014). These conflicting reports regarding Millennial influences on

organizations suggests a gulf within the comprehension of effective leader-to-Millennial


Kim and Yang (2013) confirmed that attracting, retaining, and developing Millennial

employees incorporate career training and advancement. According to Graen & Schriesman

(2013), Millennials lack the social resources needed to make viable work relationships required

for organizational development. Millennial retention and knowledge transfer challenge

52

leadership systems, in that lack of understanding and generational stereotypes contribute to failed

policies (Lyons, Urick, Kuron, & Schweitzer, 2015;Strawderman, 2014). Although generational

characterizations influence management perceptions, researchers asserted that knowledge is

needed to understand and develop effective leader-to-Millennial relationships (Findlay &

Kowbel, 2013; Samadi et al., 2015). The information retrieved from participant relational

experiences within task delegation and role development practices may enable discussions

required for creating resources to aid in the learning and retention of Millennial workforce

members.

Summary

Researchers suggested that Millennial characterizations and work preference influence

social change within the performance of organizational systems (Howe & Strauss, 2009; Ehrhart

et al., 2012). Twenge and Campbell (2008) contend that a work-life balance and individualistic

attributes contribute to the Millennials’ professional values system. In accordance with research

findings, organizations have begun to make changes within structure and policies (Cahill &

Sedrak, 2012; Kim, Knutson, & Choi, 2015). Ultimately, organizational changes may not

alleviate the issues that occur within the socialization and management of Millennial workforce

members.

Leadership relations may assist with the development of reciprocal exchanges needed for

knowledge sharing and task performance (Caimo & Lomi, 2014; Hines & Carbone, 2013;

Kodatt, 2009). The literature examined identified Millennials’ work characteristics and values

that may influence organizational systems (Leveson & Joiner, 2014). Researchers’ investigated

socialization and learning within the development of work roles (Roodin & Mendelson, 2013;

53

Starks, 2013). Leaders’ information provides the basis for understanding current concerns

regarding Millennials’ learning and retention in the workplace (Much et al., 2014). Although

these concerns are relevant to leadership systems, a gap exists within management’s knowledge

of Millennials’ perceptions of high-quality leader-to-Millennial relationships (Lyon & Kuron,

2014; Graen & Schiemann, 2013; Petroulas et al., 2010).

The interpretative phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry provided research

findings to broaden management knowledge of Millennial perceptions of effective leader-to-

employee relationship development. Study results aided in the comprehension of the cohort’s

conceptualization of leadership systems within the multigenerational environment. Chapter 3

will contain the research design and rationale. I will explain the significance of the interpretative

phenomenological approach and exemplify ethical procedures taken to explore Millennial

employees’ experiences within organizational leadership systems.

54

Chapter 3: Research Method


Millennial employees’ experiences within leader-to-Millennial relationship development.

Chapter 3 describes the method and design of the study. In the following sections, I discuss the

proposed (a) research design and rationale, (b) role of the researcher, (c) method, (d) issues of

trustworthiness, and (e) ethical procedures. Chapter 3 closes with a summary of the key

components of the research method used to enable purposeful sampling and analysis of

participant transcripts.

Research Design and Rationale

The qualitative interpretative phenomenological design provides data to answer the

question: What are Millennials’ perceptions of effective leader-to-employee relationship

development? The following sub questions guided my qualitative interpretative

phenomenological study:


workplace?





RQ1d: How do Millennials describe high-quality relationships?

The development of the leader-to-Millennial relationship is a central concept of this study.

Hierarchical social interaction and performance, determine the quality of relationship

55

development within organizations and their consequent success (Flink, 2015; Treadway et al.,

2013). The Millennial employee’s work values stimulate organizational change practices and

policies (Rodriguez & Rodriguez, 2015; Petroulas et al., 2010; Starks, 2013). In the literature

review, I identified a gap within management’s knowledge of the components that contribute to

high-quality leader-to-Millennial relationships that assist with organizational learning and social

performance (Day et al., 2014; Jokisaari, 2013; Madlock & Chory, 2013). Researchers’

suggested that Millennials’ experiences within hierarchical structures lack social involvement

needed for knowledge transfer (Graen & Schieman, 2013; Hadar, 2013; Marcinkus, 2012). The

exploration of Millennial employees’ experiences contributes to the enhancement of

organizational social change initiatives within the scope of multigenerational relationship

development.

The interpretative phenomenological design provides a reflexive method to data

collections and analysis to delineate participant experiences within the leader-to-employee work

relationship. Phenomenological studies explore a shared experience that compiles and interprets

the nature of reality for each research participant (Maxwell; 2013; Moustakas, 1994). Van

Manen (2014) proposed that the phenomenological method supplies the foundation for authentic

reflection of the participant’s experience. A line by line analysis illicits meaning and clarification

of Millennials’ terms and phrases associated with hierarchical social development (Küpers, 2013;

Smith et al., 2009). The analytical procedure helped in the understanding of participants’ shared

experiences.

The phenomenological embodiment of the leader-to-employee exchange enables an

adept interpretation of relational activities (Fisher & Robins, 2014). Evaluation of leader-to-

56

Millennial social exchanges within hierarchical structures presented emerging themes that

contributed to the comprehension of information needed for evaluative discussions concerning

employee learning and performance. Discovery of these themes broadens the conceptual

understanding of Millennial perceptions of leader-to-employee relationship development to aid

in the evolution of leadership systems.

The interpretative phenomenological design provides a platform for participants to reflect

and recollect the details of experiences (Smith, 2011; Smith et al., 2009). Individual perceptions

underlie a collection of beliefs and values that emerge from social experiences (Husserl, 2002).

These individual experiences aid in the complex understanding of a shared phenomenon (Van

Manen, 2014; Vagel, 2014). Although the majority of leader-to-member exchange theory studies

use quantitative methods for understanding the variables that influence role development and job

satisfaction, the qualitative research method chosen for this study explores Millennials’

experiences within relationships with leaders (Gürkan & Aktaş, 2014; Zhang et al., 2012).

According to Fischer and Robbins (2014), the phenomenological lens may provide a platform to

reveal the underlying meaning of leader-to-employee relations.

Role of the Researcher

The role of the researcher includes the collection, interpretation, and reporting of the

participant experience through face-to-face interviews (Vagel, 2010; Van Manen, 2014). The

qualitative interpretative phenomenological design includes activities that enable authentic

sampling and analysis. Authentic sampling and analysis practices contain member checking and

reflexive methods to minimize bias. Minimizing biases and conflict of interest assists with

purposeful sample collections (Miles et al., 2014). In this study, all information regarding current

57

and past relationships with participants was revealed and documented. Development of an ethical

procedures strategy identified within the issues of trustworthiness section of this chapter helped

in handling concerns that aroused during the process of obtaining, analyzing, and reporting

participant interview information.

Method and Design

The evaluation of Millennial employees’ experiences include a method and design for

data collection and interpretation (Miles et al., 2014; Vagel, 2014). Investigated in this section

are the components of the qualitative interpretative phenomenological study. The components

are (a) participant selection logic, (b) recruitment strategy, (c) instrumentation, (d) data

collection, (e) data analysis, and (f) data management plan.

Participant Selection Logic

The process of leader-to-employee relationship development occurs within three stages

(a) role-making, (b) role-taking, and (c) role-routinization (Osman & Nahar, 2015). Research

analysis of the LMX does not specify exact time periods or duration for high-quality relationship

development. Theorists suggest that relationships develop instantaneously upon the assessment

of leader role-making and member performance (Dockery & Steiner, 1990; Scandura & Graen,

1984; Zhang et al., 2013). Based on my review of the LMX literature, participants selected were

in established relationships with managers for 1 year or more. The criteria for inclusion and

exclusion (see Appendix H), developed per requested by Walden University’s Institutional

Review Board (IRB), helped with the purposeful sampling process.

Participant criteria for inclusion were defined as (a) Millennials who work full-time, (b)

Millennials who work directly with administrators, directors, managers, or supervisors, and (c)

58

Millennials who have a working relationship with their manager for one year or more.

Participant criteria for exclusion were defined as (a) Millennial employees with minimal leader

or manager contact, (b) Millennials employees who work in decentralized work environments

where leadership changes as per assignment or project, and (c) Millennial employees who work

on a temporary basis. Temporary work arrangements, in particular, lack high-quality social

exchanges needed for effective organizational membership (Kossek, Thompson, & Lautsch,

2015; O’Donnell, Yukl, & Taber, 2012). These types of work designs include flexible structures

and responsibilities that may counteract relationship development, whereby leaders refrain from

sharing organizational knowledge and resources (Chien & Lin, 2012; Parker, 2014).

I used a purposeful sampling strategy. In a purposeful sample, the researcher consciously

selects participants from a particular setting in accord with the purpose and the phenomenon

studied (Palinkas et al., 2013). The Millennial participants selected, supply information not

obtainable from other sampling methods (Miles et al., 2014). Useful participant selection

required a recruitment strategy and rationale to guide research practices.

Recruitment Strategy

The goal of this strategy was to obtain permission from 20 participants or until sample

saturation occurred. Small sample sizes are typical and range from 6 to 25 participants

(Moustakas, 1994; Van Manen, 2014). There is a compelling reason to argue that defining

participant size prior to research contradicts the exploratory nature of qualitative inquiry

(Maxwell, 2012; Patton, 2002). Sampling is continual, in that the researchers should gather

participants until the point of saturation (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011). Sampling saturation occurs

when information within participant interviews cease to provide new themes and categories

59

(Mason, 2010). Obtaining permission from 20 participants before data collection allowed

sufficient sampling and analysis of the research phenomenon.

Sampling Strategy

The sample strategies presented provides exhaustive measures needed to obtain purposive

samples in the case or instance where one sample method resulted in too few participants.

Criterion based selection. Miles et al. (2014) defined criterion based selection as an

effective method for establishing creditability within the characterization of a shared experience.

Criterion based selection within this study included gaining information from young professional

committees within Huntington and Melville Chambers of Commerce. Participant invitation and

consent forms (see Appendix A) were emailed to committee members who fit the inclusion

criteria. Letters of cooperation from the committee chair acknowledge that the association

understands the research purpose, criteria, and consent to access members about participant

selection (see Appendices B and C).

Snowball strategy. The snowball sample strategy consists of activities that helped

acquire participants through informant recommendations (Miles et al., 2014). Building rapport

with organizational leaders who are current members of the local Chambers of Commerce

assisted with the implementation of the snowball sample strategy. Chamber members who have

knowledge of the research objectives and criteria were encouraged to recommend participants for

the interview process (Elo et al., 2014; Seidman, 2013).

Maximum variation. The last method of sample selection is maximum variation.

Maximum variation is a sampling criterion that helped identify themes and patterns shared

within differing organizations (Polit & Beck, 2010). According to Patton (2002), selection of

60

participants from different organizational settings minimizes one-sidedness that can hinder data

analysis and reports. Selecting participants from a particular organizational sector may render

information that is limited to the characteristics and contexture of a particular business culture.

Individuals were chosen from the following organizational sectors: (a) education, (b) financial

services, (c) government, (d) insurance, (e) non-profit, (f) publishing, (g) real estate, and (h)

retail. Equally important, variability in organizational backgrounds demonstrates reliability of

information gathered to explain the essence of Millennial participants’ shared experience

(Maxwell, 2012; Vagel, 2014).

Instrumentation

Interview questions and audio recordings were the data collection instrumentation

utilized to capture data. The development of the research interview questions required an

organized process to gain useful and reliable participant responses (Maxell, 2005; Smith et al.,

2009).

Background. Interpretative phenomenological evaluation of Millennial employees

working relationships with leadership required instrumentation that gathers information from

participant recollection of experiences for comprehensive reporting (Maxwell, 2012; Patton,

2002; Smith et al., 2009). Quantitative measures assisted with the evaluations of leader-to-

employee exchanges using multi-dimensional and uni-dimensional scales to assess relational

performance (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Michel & Tews, 2016; Yang, Ding, & Lo, 2015). The

construction of open-ended questions allowed participants to describe the essence of leader-to-

Millennial relationship development in the workplace. The sequence of questions enabled

genuine responses to describe social exchanges within role development and task delegation

61

practices. Follow-up questions encouraged participants to share contextual descriptions to

comprehend Millennials’ holistic experience within leader-to-employee relationships (Vagel,

2014).

Development. The interview questions include 11 open-ended questions that helped in

the exploration of Millennials’ perceptions of leader-to-employee relationship development (see

Appendix D). The seminal theorist of the LMX theory suggested that high and low-quality

relationships are resultant of social exchange performance (Graen, 2003). Leaders and

employees who engage in high-quality exchanges have relationships with increased levels of

trust, reciprocity, and mutual goal achievement (Graen & Cashman, 1975 Graen & Schiemann,

2013; Graen & Uhl-Bein, 1995; Liden & Graen, 1980). Low-quality relationships include leader-

to-employee exchanges that meet the requirements defined within the employers' contract. Low-

quality exchanges lack the organizational and psychological resources needed for high

performing work relationships. The interview questions contained the terminology to elicit

responses that may describe leader-to-Millennial exchanges within organizational relationships.

The interview protocol for this interpretative phenomenological study comprised both

experience/behavior and follow-up/clarification questions, to interpret Millennial participants’

shared experiences (Patton, 2002). Patton proposed that experience/behavior questions assist

with gathering participant information through the recollection of activities that explain the

research phenomenon. Follow-up/clarification questions provide the interviewer with an

opportunity to revisit participant responses for in-depth understanding (Morse, 2015; Vagel,

2014). This category of questions enabled the gathering of rich and thick descriptions of the

participants’ experiences (Van Manen, 2014). The understanding of qualitative interview

62

standards provided the structure for developing an instrumentation draft for expert review and

validation. The interview protocol (see Appendix D) contains experience/behavior questions.

The follow-up/clarification questions, when used, delineate participant terms and phrases.

Validation. Expert panel members were selected to evaluate the interview instrument on

clarity, appropriateness, and relevance. The preliminary interview consisted of 15 questions, of

which 12 were accepted and approved by expert panelist. Members identified issues of

wordiness, vague terminology, and inconsistencies with the interview approach. A follow up

email included revisions of the instrumentation for expert approval. Expert approvals provided

supportive documentation that the interview questions met the requirements for creditable data

collection and analysis.

The validation of the interview instrument included the selection of five expert panel

members. The expert panel was selected through email invitation of a defined group of

individuals with academic and professional expertise within management and leadership. Email

invitations (see Appendix E) was sent to 25 perspective individuals within the management

fields of academics, business, information technology and nursing. The invitation letter I

constructed introduces the research problem, purpose, and conceptual framework used to

examine leader-to-Millennial relationships.

Data Collection

Data collection incorporates the steps and processes taken to gather and prepare interview

documentation for researcher analysis. The interview location is of particular importance within

qualitative data collection (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Seidman, 2013). The site selected for

participant interviews provides minimal distractions to gather responses and detailed meaning

63

regarding the practices involved in leader-to-Millennial relationships. Upon request, interviews

were conducted at the participants' private office due to scheduling difficulties.

Information collected from face-to-face interviews using note taking and audio recording

supplied data for analysis. I conducted the participant interviews and transcribed the information

for qualitative coding and evaluation. Data collection ensued during face-to-face interviews. I

scheduled a 60-90 minute time frame for the participant interviewing process (Seidman, 2013).

The process consisted of a review of the (a) informed consent (b) interview process, and (c)

participant debriefing practices. The informed consent and debriefing process addressed in the

ethical procedures section of Chapter 3 identify my intentions toward protecting participants'

human rights.

Data Analysis Plan

Moustakas (1994) proposed that qualitative phenomenological inquiry must incorporate a

rigorous analytical process, that suspends the practitioner's personal meaning to illuminate

participant lived experiences. Suspension of personal meaning within data collection and

analysis continuously occurs to reduce researcher judgments and false claims. According to

Klenke (2008) and Smith et al., (2009), the collaboration of data collection, analysis, and

interpretative activities contribute to the quality of research inquiry. Heidegger (as cited in

Lopez, 2004) asserted that the interpretative phenomenological approach explores experiences to

understand the essential nature of the participant’s reality. Vagel (2014) confirmed that data

analysis should incorporate methods to reduce bias that may hinder the interpretation of

participants’ recollection of the experience. The data analysis plan contains the methods and

64

steps used to reduce biases that can obstruct the credibility of participant responses and research

interpretations.

The data analysis plan include the following steps (a) member checking, (b) bracketing

and reduction, (c) delineating units of meaning, (d) horizontalization, (e) summation of

individual interviews, and (f) interpretation of themes of participants’ shared experience. The

six-step plan helped establish an audit trail for future research evaluations within leader-to-

Millennial relationship development. The following is a comprehensive assessment of the data

analysis plan:.

Member Checking. Member checking is the foremost measure in the data analysis plan

that offers authentic and participant approved samples for evaluation. Member checking assists

with building credibility of data collection practices (Harper & Cole, 2012; Vagel, 2014). I

assembled and transcribed data from participant interviews. Research participants received a

transcript of their interview documentation for review of obscure terms and idioms. If needed, a

follow-up face-to-face or telephone call enabled a follow-up discussion and retrospection of

participant issues. The conversation provided time to revisit interview questions for clarity and

confirm that the information in the transcript represents a veritable communication of the

participant's experience.

Bracketing and reduction. Bracketing and reduction happen consistently throughout the

collection and analysis stages of the study (Husserl, 2002). Journaling compartmentalized my

personal objectives associated with study participant experiences and interview behavior

(Klenke, 2009; Vagel, 2014). Align with the methods defined by Lincoln and Gruba (1985),

bracketing and reduction initiatives assisted with diminishing barriers that deter the effectiveness

65

of the human research instrument. Implementation of the bracketing and reduction process

helped with the coding and interpretation of participants’ experiences during leader-to-employee


Delineating units of meaning. Delineating units of meaning include defining and

interpreting participant responses found within audio interview data. Evaluation of terms and

phrases that present themselves within participant interviews provide a rich and thick description

of the research phenomenon (Van Manen, 2014). According to Smith et al. (2009), line-by-line

analysis assists with the recognition of emerging terms and ideas. Maxwell et al. (2014) found

that within the inaugural set of interview cases, researcher and participant dialogue provides the

code structure needed for horizontalization. Manual coding of the first three interviews helped

develop structural coding used in the NVivo 10 software application.

Horizontalization. Horizontalization includes the clustering of units of meanings that

support the interpretative understanding of participants’ shared experience (Miles et al., 2014;

Smith et al., 2009). Gathering units of significance found within individual interviews provide

the elements required to prepare a list of important statements. Next, lists of significant

statements were compared and analyzed to identify relationships between participants’

responses. Vagel (2014) affirmed that the process help create a participant narrative.

Summation of individual interviews. Summation of individual interviews included the

comprehension and development of descriptive participant case responses. The report described

the participant’s perception of events that occurred within the phenomenon investigated. Vagel

(2014) suggested that the researcher provide a thorough and contextual description of

participant’s responses to assist with the data analysis and summations. Identification of

66

observable behaviors that support or contradict verbal responses will contribute to the reliability

and authentication of participant experiences (Van Manen, 2014).

In-depth summary of themes and interpretation. An in-depth summary of themes and

interpretation consist of gathering detailed reports of individual interviews. The collaboration of

participant interviews enabled the development of a comprehensive interpretative report on

Millennial participants’ perceptions of leader-to-employee relationship development (Klenke,

2008). Equally important, Smith et al. (2009) advised that interview summaries should include a

theme-by-theme visual guide to assist in the interpretation and presentation of participants’

shared experiences. A summary of my reflections during data collections and analysis minimized

issues of trustworthiness within the creditability and confirmability of Millennial participants’

interpretations (Tracy, 2010; Vagel, 2014).

Although the data analysis plan supports the defining and organization of research

activities, information regarding conflicting cases required a course of action to minimize

redundant and obtrusive accounts. Member checking addressed discrepant, inapplicable and

overly abstract case data (Maxwell, 2012; Tracy 2010). Inadequate responses to interviews

provide the basis for the evaluation of confirming and disconfirming evidence, whereby a

difference takes place between participants’ articulation of similar terms and recounts (Freeman,

DeMarrais, Preissle, Roulston, St. Pierre, 2007). Member checking permits a follow-up

discussion for participant clarity and amplified meaning (Vagel, 2014). Based on the

methodology and design, all information confirming or disconfirming contributed to the

exploration of Millennial employees’ experiences.

67

Data Management Plan

The development of effective reporting occurred using the NVivo 10 software application

for data collection and analysis. Computer applications allow researchers to organize large

amounts of codes and information (Bazely, 2011; Miles et al., 2014). I incorporated Mile and

Huberman (1994) five principles of data management using the NVivo 10 software application.

The data management principles are as follows: (a) formatting, the methods used to transcribe

and document interviews and observations; (b) cross-referral, the procedures used to link data

within different participant cases; (c) indexing, a structural code list or book used to define the

meaning of general terms within participant interviews; (d) abstracting, merging key ideas of

observation or field text into a brief and succinct summary; and (e) pagination, placements of

numbers and letters to assist with identifying the location of terms within interview transcripts

and literature. Data management is imperative within qualitative research, in that the steps taken

to store and retrieve information support effective analysis (Bazely, 2013). Chapter 4 will

describe in detail the methods used for data management and analysis.

Issues of Trustworthiness

Vagel (2014) proposed that quality and creditability assists with establishing value within

the objectivity of research roles and methodology. Establishing trustworthiness within qualitative

inquiry required a discourse regarding the processes that provide (a) creditability, (b)

transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) confirmability of participant cases (Thomas & Magilvy,

2011). The evaluation of issues of trust-worth bolstered data collection and analysis of

participant cases.

68

Creditability

Establishing creditability required methods to demonstrate legitimacy within the

gathering and analysis of purposeful samples (Houghton, Casey, Shaw, Murphy, 2013; Vagel,

2014). Demonstrate by creditable means aim to supply evidence of research rigor within the

articulation, verification, and arrangement of data collection practices (Miles et al., 2014).

During the sampling process, I documented the steps used to attract and retain participants to

establish creditability of the study method and design. The qualitative selection and evaluation of

Millennial participants required methods that assist with opening a perceptive mode of

communications.

First, I established a rapport upon initial interaction. Discussions of the research

objectives minimized misconceptions of the interview process as well as stimulated awareness

within the scope of leader-to-Millennial relationship development. The informed consent

outlined within the ethical procedures section in this chapter played multiple roles in this inquiry.

The informed consent helped explain the (a) research objectives, (b) interview process, and (c)

the rights of the participant. The process assisted with establishing trust needed to obtain vivid

descriptions of participant experiences.

Transferability

Qualitative researchers’ affirmed that naturalistic inquiries must include additional data

collection methods to assist with developing an audit trail (Vagel, 2014; Miles et al., 2014).

Audio recording and note taking during interviews helped access and create a thorough

understanding of Millennials’ experiences within leader-to-employee relationship development.

Maximum variations within the selection of participants demonstrate transferability across

69

distinct groups and social environments (Polit & Beck, 2010). Participants professional diversity

helped define the essence of leader-to-Millennial relationship development. The selection

strategy enabled the selection of participants from different organizations and business fields to

provide a core understanding of the components that underlie Millennial employees’ experiences

(Maxwell, 2012; Thomas & Maglivy, 2011).

Dependability

Articulation of study and reliability of data for analysis provide proof of dependability in

qualitative inquiry. Dependability of the research processes includes a detailed description of the

intended practices outlined in the data collections section of this chapter and actual methods

addressed in Chapter 4. The steps are pertinent to future replication (Thomas & Maglivy, 2010).

Establishing an audit trail in the initial stages of research development is crucial to the qualitative

inquiry process. Documentation of thoughts, terms, and interview settings provides readers with

a comprehensive account of select participants and the research phenomenon. Member checking

assists with establishing reliability of the data retrieved from participant responses (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2011; Vagel, 2014). The execution of structured participant interviews, assisted with

building an in-depth understanding of holistic experiences needed for analytical reasoning

(Maxwell, 2012; Van Manen, 2014).

Confirmability

Addressing issues of trustworthiness include understanding elements that can contradict

or support sound researcher judgment (Patton, 2002). Patton proposed that maximum variability

and reflexivity minimized subjectivity within sample collection and analysis. As noted in the

sampling strategies section, this study used maximum variability in the selection of participants

70

from a variety of organizations to minimize issues of trustworthiness. The selection of

participants from different organizational backgrounds helps establish confirmability.

Confirmability demonstrates value and creditability within participant reports and

epistemological analysis (Miles et al., 2014; Yilmaz, 2013). Participants’ professional diversity

helped characterize everyday practices within individual experiences to provide a shared

narrative of leader-to-Millennial relationship development.

A reflective approach minimized bias. Understanding the factors that can influence

researcher judgments is critical to the collection and analysis of the participants’ experience.

Lincoln and Gruba (1985) asserted that awareness of personal bias and beliefs can add value to

qualitative inquiry. Van Manen (2014) proposed that reflexivity within qualitative research

provide a self-disclosed accounting of events that may affect research data collection and

analytical process. I demonstrated reflexivity using journal entries within notebooks transferred

to the NVivo 10 software application.

Ethical Procedures

The gathering and analysis of data from participant interviews required ethical standards

and strict codes of conduct (Maxwell, 2012). The process of gaining information regarding

participant experiences may pose a potential threat within the care and representation of data

(Vagel, 2014; Van Manen, 2014). Researchers must incorporate measures to ensure the safety of

human research participants (Miles et al., 2014). The objective of this section is to address

ethical procedures and care within the procurement of Millennial participants for purposeful

sample collection.

71

Institutional Permissions

Institutional permissions and practices are stated as follows: I did not gather participant

data until such time the IRB approves the research proposal (see Appendix F). The IRB number

for this study is 02-10-15-0230896 with an expiration date of February 9, 2016. The sampling

strategy enabled the gathering of research participants. Participants' name and personal

information remains confidential. Case numbers were used to identify participants within the

presentation of research findings. Transcripts, audio recordings, and journal notes from

interviews are stored within a password protected external drive to prevent local and

unauthorized access for five years. All data will be shredded and removed from physical and

computer storage locations upon IRB guidelines and requirements (Miles et al., 2014).

Informed Consent

An informed consent (see Appendix G) was issued within the participant selection

process and before the interview proceedings. The informed consent identified the purpose of the

research and clarified that his or her participation is voluntary and confidential. I informed the

participant of his or her right to withdraw from the interview or study at any time upon request.

Finally, I explained that a debriefing process, held after the meeting, would help clarify questions

or concerns regarding the study. The debriefing process established a follow-up communications

plan and provided instructions required for the member checking process.

Debriefing Process

I facilitated the debriefing process at the conclusion of the interview. During the

debriefing process, I explained the participant’s rights found within the informed consent and

provided an approximate time that transcripts of the interview would be available. I advised the

72

participant that a follow-up meeting would be required to go over participant questions or

inconsistencies found upon initial review of the interview transcripts. At that time, participants

had the option of selecting a telephone conference in place of meeting face-to-face.

Inconsistencies in the documentation and interpretation of information required a face-to-face

second interview meeting for evaluation.

Treatment of Data

Information protection is a central component of qualitative data analysis. The process

includes the organization and protection of researcher data. Storage and protection of

information ensured the security of research documents. Loss prevention efforts entailed the

allowances and accommodations made for securing transcripts, digital recording, and

computerized data. Procedures to secure data include the creation of backup sets of information

on a separate hard drive. Backup sets of digital recording, journals, instrumentation, and forms

are locked in file drawers. Research equipment and software were updated to assist with efficient

data recording, analysis, and reporting (Bazeley, 2013). Data management practices are essential

to the integrity and implementation of methods identified within this qualitative research inquiry

(Miles et al., 2014; Vagel, 2014). All research efforts assisted with maintaining a secure platform

for data analysis and accessibility.

Summary

The research method and design provide an understanding of the strategies that

encompassed this interpretative phenomenological approach. In Chapter 3, I explained the

rationale and key concepts of the qualitative inquiry. The evaluation of the method and design,

issues of trustworthiness, and ethical procedures revealed a systematic approach used to

73

minimize research biases and misinterpretations. Defining methods to establish creditability

within qualitative research presented my intention toward effective data collection and analysis.

The steps provided activities needed to protect human subjects. The ethical procedures strategy

comprises the (a) statement of institutional permissions, (b) informed consent, (c) debriefing

process, and (d) treatment of data. In Chapter 4, I will define the role of the researcher and

present the conglomeration of steps that resulted in broadening management knowledge of


74

Chapter 4: Results


Millennial employees’ experiences within leader-to-Millennial relationship development. The

execution of the hermeneutic method of data analysis helped create a research design to elicit

participant information for deeper and reflective analysis. According to Smith et al. (2009), the

research design permits a comprehensive overview of a particular phenomenon. The

interpretative phenomenological method provided information that answered the central research


development? The following sub questions helped guide my investigation:


workplace?





The data collection and analysis of twenty Millennial participants working for 1 year or

more with their current manager provided exhaustive information that described the social

exchanges that occur within task delegation and role development. In this chapter, data analysis

and presentation of results will include figures and direct quotations from participant interviews.

My findings affirmed that Millennials perceive effective relationship development as a process

containing empowerment behaviors needed for collaborative social engagement. Exploration of

75

participant experiences further identified that reciprocity is a result of effective relationship

development.

Role of the Researcher

My role as the qualitative researcher required a variety of responsibilities (Maxwell,

2012; Patton, 2002). The roles are as follows: (a) a protector, guard and enact methods to protect

participant rights and data acquired during the research process; (b) an explorer, engage

participants to assist with the emergence of ideas and concepts that underlie a lived experiences;

(c) an interpreter, translates participant experiences through data analysis; (d) an auditor,

incorporate steps to establish trustworthiness and accountability; (e) a learner, comprehend

participant narratives needed to broaden knowledge regarding a specified research phenomenon;

and (f) a narrator, produce a representation of combined participant responses (Houghton et al.,

2013; Lincoln & Gruba, 1985; Moustakas, 1994). My role enabled proficient sampling and

analysis of participant responses as it pertains to the comprehension of a shared experience.

The qualitative researcher role also entailed the collection and interpretation of the

participant experience through ethical practices that delivered authenticity and creditability to the

problem identified. Information acquired within structured interviews with Millennial

participants assisted with the discernment of social exchanges during leader-to-employee

relationship development. The evaluation of leader-to-millennial social exchanges required an

epistemological process to broaden research knowledge within the scope of high-quality

relationship development. Transcripts of in-depth interviews revealed critical data needed to

understand Millennial perceptions of leader-to-member exchanges within organizational social

systems.

76

Researcher’s past and current relationships may influence responsive behaviors.

According to Peredaryenko and Krauss (2013), effective qualitative designs include descriptions

of researcher relationships and sampling strategy. Minimizing biases and conflict of interest

assists with purposeful sampling. Therefore, disclosure of information regarding current and past

relationships with participants help reduce (a) discrepant responses, (b) obscurity, (c)

interviewer, and (d) participant bias. I impart, that at the time of the data collection, I did not

have a personal or work relationship with participants. A sampling strategy addressed within the

methodology section of this chapter will detail the procedure used to ensure that individuals

selected contributed with authentic responses to describe the leader-to-Millennial relationship

development phenomenon.

Establishing an audit trail was critical to the conformability of participants' shared

experiences. Miles and Huberman (1994) affirmed that documentation of the researchers

approach, observation, and self-analysis expedite qualitative analysis. Clear and concise record

keeping deliver a coherent and accountable qualitative report (Maxwell, 2012). Documentation

establishes an audit trail and aligns researcher intention with the stability of the methodological

process (Vagel, 2014). The development of an ethical procedures strategy within the issues of

trustworthiness section in Chapter 3 served as a valuable guide during the process of obtaining,

analyzing, and reporting participant interview information.

Research Setting

The settings for face-to-face interviews were held in a closed office or conference room

to protect participant's privacy and to minimize interruptions. Six participants requested

interviews at their organization, in the privacy of their office due to scheduling conflicts. The

77

remaining interviews were held outside of the participant's organization, at either public library

or Chamber of Commerce conference room. During each interview, I reviewed the informed

consent and summarized the purpose of the study and the my role. Before each initial meeting, I

explained that the interview would be digitally recorded and transcribed for data analysis. The

participant was allowed time to ask questions regarding the informed consent and interview

process. The interviews began after participant approval that he or she understood their rights

and research protocol.

Personal and organizational conditions that influenced participants’ responses at the time

of study include changes within organizational roles that may affect relationships with managers.

Changes include social interactions that occurred before the face-to-face interview that altered

participants’ roles within the organization or department. For example, changes in leadership

behaviors may influence participant perceptions of the organization and roles previously

established by managers (Smith, 2015). During the interview, Participant 5 expressed feelings of

abandonment in that her manager is in the process of retirement, and is rarely available to offer

assistance. Shifts within responsibilities that alter employee confidence levels may contribute to

adverse responses toward current leader social exchanges. Negative elements such as workplace

stress, changes in the organizational structure, or work conflicts contribute to a surge of low-

quality relational exchanges (Shin, Taylor, & See, 2012). Although this case exhibit

characteristics that epitomize a low-quality relationship with leadership, the data supplied from

the interview provided emergent themes that aligned with the collective experience of research

participants.

78

Participants and Sampling Strategy

The Young Professional Group within the local Chambers of Commerce in Long Island,

New York, provided a purposeful sample population that met the proposed participant age

criteria to fulfill Millennial generations’ standards for evaluation. Email invitations to acquire

participants were sent to twenty-three Young Professional Group Members, of which 11

responded. A questionnaire helped determine participant inclusion and exclusion (see Appendix

H). Six of the eleven committee members met the criteria for inclusion. Committee members

who participated were asked to provide email addresses of work peers, friends, and family who

may fit the sample criteria. Email invitations were sent to 23 referrals. The snowball strategy

helped attain 14 research participants who met the research criteria and agreed to participate in

the study. Consent forms were reviewed and signed by participants before their interview

sessions.

The maximum variation was the last method of sample selection. Participants from a

variety of organizational settings strengthened the validity of the emergent themes gathered from

individual experiences. The inclusion/exclusion screening questions (see Appendix H) helped

identify the field of business, employee tenure, and length of time working with the current

manager. Table 1 displays the demographic details of the participant sample.

79

Table 1

Participant Demographics

Gender Age Field of business Years

w/job

Years

w/manager

Participant 1 M 33 Financial services 3 1.5

Participant 2 F 24 Law office 3 1

Participant 3 M 31 Financial services 1 1

Participant 4 F 26 Government 1 1

Participant 5 F 29 Nonprofit 3 3

Participant 6 F 25 Financial services 4 4



Participant 9 F 26 Financial services 2 2


Participant 11 M 25 Retail-Family business 5 5


Participant 13 M 28 Law office-Family

business

1 1


Participant 15 F 31 Financial services 8 1.5

Participant 16 M 29 Journalist 7 7

Participant 17 M 27 Real estate 1 1

Participant 18 F 30 Education 3 3

Participant 19 M 30 Insurance 1 1

Participant 20 F 27 Nonprofit 2.5 2.5

80

Data Collection Methods

The data collection methods included steps and procedures needed to collect and prepare

interview documentation for in-depth data analysis and rendering. Data was collected from 20

Millennial participants. Before the face-to-face interviews, I reviewed the informed consent with

each participant and allotted time to respond to participant concerns. The face-to-face interview

included 12 open-ended questions validated by an expert panel (see Appendix D). The interview

questions were created to explore and provoke participant feelings and emotions that describe the

essence of their relationships with their manager. Interviews lasted approximately 45-60 minutes

among research participants. All of the interviews were recorded on two digital recorders. One

recorder served as the primary source used for transcription. The second recorder provided

backup for loss and retrieval functions.

Participant information, consent forms, and transcript hard copies were stored in

individual file folders. Each participant was assigned a number to protect his or her identity and

privacy. File folders were labeled with corresponding numbers for accessibility. Participant

folders and digital recording devices were locked securely in a file cabinet after each data

collection, transcription, and reporting session.

Analysis of Interview Data

The analysis of interview data incorporated the processes used to gather, code, and

reduce data for thematic reporting. This section discusses the implementation of the following

procedures (a) transcription, (b) bracketing, and (c) data coding and analysis.

81

Transcription

Each digitally recorded interview was transcribed using the Express Scribe software

program, earphones, and foot pedal. Information was typed directly into a word document and

saved. Transcription of interviews occurred in 30-minute intervals. Thirty minutes of digital

recording took approximately two-three hours to process. The bulk of the interviews were

transcribed in three to five business days. All transcripts were saved to a password protected

computer file, on an external hard drive stored within a locked file cabinet. Transcript copies

were printed for review and manual data coding. All printed copies were stored in a locked file

cabinet.

Bracketing

According to Sorsa, Kiikkala, and Astedt-Kurki (2015) bracketing reduces researcher’s

judgments that may interfere with data collection and analysis. In this study, the use of

journaling to bracket ideas and personal conceptions reduced bias. Throughout the research

process, journaling helped manage concepts that aroused from memory. Bracketing assisted with

self-awareness and reflection that enabled an authentic interaction with each participant. The

bracketing process minimized information overload. Reflecting on interview content, personal,

and professional experiences provided an opportunity to compartmentalize mental data in memos

within the NVivo program for future analysis.

Data Coding and Analysis

Aligned with Smith et al. (2009) discourse of interpretative phenomenological analysis

(IPA), coding occurred in six stages. For the purpose of this study, Figure 3 is a visual model I

82

created of the IPA strategy. The model was designed to define the stages taken during data

analysis.

Figure 3. IPA coding and analytical strategy. A Model created for this study to identify the six

stages included in the coding and analysis of participant transcripts. The process is needed for

effective analytical focus and interpretations of participants’ shared experiences of a defined

research phenomenon (Smith et al., 2009).

Stage 6

Develop Interpretative Description of the the Shared Experience

Stage 5

Analyze for Connections Identify Patterns Across

Participant Cases Remove Duplications within

Coding

Stage 4

Combine Terms and Phrases Defining Thematic Associations

Stage 3

Structural Coding In NVivo 10 Identifying Emergent Themes Repeat Stages 1-3 for All Participant Cases Before Proceeding to Stage 4

Stage 2 Manual Coding of Participants' Transcripts

Stage 1 Initial Review of Interview Data Interview Transcription

83

The first stage took place during the initial review of transcribed data. During

transcription, an initial review of the participants' responses helped with familiarization of speech

and keywords. After participants had reviewed transcripts for clarity of vague terms, a printed

copy was used for manual coding. The digital copy was saved to an external hard drive. The

second stage consisted of manual coding interview transcripts. Manual coding provided a

preliminary overview of research themes. Keywords were highlighted, and notes were placed in

the right-hand margin of the transcript. Manual coding of the first three transcripts helped with

building a preliminary coding structure. The preliminary coding structure was transferred and

developed within the NVivo software application.

According to Saldaña (2012), structural coding using computerized software assists with

line-by-line analysis and categorization of interview data for in-depth analysis. Structural coding

minimizes data overload in that sub-questions served as an indexing guide needed to identify

common themes. The third stage incorporated the steps for identifying emergent themes. The

NVivo 10 application advanced the structural coding process and revealed emerging themes

categorized within assigned nodes. Transcripts were classified according to the research sub

questions (see Appendix D) to help interpret Millennial employee experiences within


84

Figure 4. Stage 3 structural coding process. The process used for classifying emerging themes

into parent nodes in NVivo 10. The structural coding process identified emerging themes to

interpret Millennial employee experiences within relationship development to answer the central


development?

Following Smith et al. 2009 methods of IPA, themes reveal the collusion of participants

and researcher descriptions of a defined experience (p. 92). A query report helped to identify

emerging themes within sub-question 1a-1d. Figures 5-10 provide visual graphs of emerging

themes gathered for each research sub question.

Central Question

What are Millennials' perceptions of effective leader-to-employee relationship development?

Parent Node 1

Themes

Sub Question 1a

LMX/ Relationship Development

Practices

Interview questions

1-5

Parent Node 2

Themes

Sub Question 1b

LMX/Role

Development Practices

Interview question

6

Parent Node 3

Themes

Sub Question 1c

LMX/Task Delegation Practices

Interview questions

7-9

Parent Node 4

Themes

Sub Question 1d

Millennials & High Quality

Relationships

Interview questions

10-12

85

Figure 5. Sub question 1a: Emerging themes. Identified emerging themes within responses of

sub question 1a: How do Millennials perceive leader-to-employee relationships within the

workplace? Key themes identified were open communications, autonomy, and trust.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Open Communications

Control/Autonomy/No-Micro-managing

Mutual Trust/Trusting/Confiding

Provide Support

Provide Learning Opportunities

Reciprocity

Mutual Respect

Sharing

Guidance

Work Collaboratively

Show Interest in Employee

Constructive Criticism

Friends

Goal Alignment

Grow Careers

Honesty

Mentoring Relationship

Understanding

Empower Enable

Flexibility

Sub Question 1a: Emerging Themes

Number of Participants

86

Figure 6. Sub question 1b: Emerging themes. Identified emerging themes within responses of

sub-question 1b: How do Millennials describe leader-to-employee social exchanges within role

development practices? Key themes identified were empowering, past experiences prior to

working with manager, and mentoring.

Figure 7. Sub question 1c: Emerging themes. Identified emerging themes within responses of

sub-question 1c: How do Millennials describe leader-to-employee social exchanges within task

delegation practices? Key themes Identified were weekly meetings, learning opportunities,

activities that help the organizations, and tasks that align with skills.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Empowerment

Outside of Work Exchanges

Mentored by Manager

Learning from Experience

Ownership

Previous Experience

Skills Building Tasks

Constructive Criticism

Sub Question 1b: Emerging Themes


0 5 10 15

Prefer Feedback on Task Performance

Task Outside of Role/Don't Like

Task Outside of Role/Like

Tasks Outside of Role/Learning…

Tasks Outside of Role/Part of job

Tasks Outside of Role/Part of Work…

Volunteering /Aligns with Mission

Volunteering/ Part of Work Culture

Volunteering/Learning Opportunity

Volunteering/Ownership

Volunteering/To Help the Company

Weekly Meetings

Sub question 1c: Emerging Themes


87

Figure 8: Sub question 1d: Emerging themes. Identified emerging themes within responses of

sub-question 1d: How do Millennials describe high-quality relationships? Key themes identified

were that high quality relationships are collaborative with direct and clear communications.

Figure 9: Sub question 1d: Leader attributes. Identified emerging themes within responses of sub

question 1d: Describe leader attributes to assist with building high-quality relationships. Key

themes revealed were communications attributes, no micromanaging, and open to new ways of

handling work-related tasks.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Collaborative/Team work

Direct and Clear Communications

Helpful to Manager

Goal Alignment

Supportive

Opportunity to Learn

Flexible

Sub Question 1d: Emergent Themes


0 2 4 6 8 10

Direct Communications/Clear Goals…

Good Communications

No Micromanaging/Take Task…

Open to New Ways/Adaptable

Be Approachable/Be a People Person

Provide Opportunites to Learn

Understanding

Align Job with Employee Skills

Supportive

Openness/Open to new…

Lead by Example

Provide Flexibility

Mutual Respect

Sub Question 1d: Leader Attributes


88

Figure 10. Sub question 1d: Employee attributes. Identified emerging themes within responses of

sub question 1d: Describe employee attributes that assist with building high-quality relationships.

Key themes identified were respectful, open communications, and open to learning new skills.

Coding and analysis of participants’ responses on sub question 1a provided three key

emerging themes that described how Millennials perceive leader-to-employee relationships

within the workplace as providing (a) open communications, (b) supportive, and (c) trust. Sub

question 1b identified four emerging themes that described leader-to-employee social exchanges

within role development as (a) empowering, (b) past work experiences, (c) mentorship, and (d)

learning opportunities. Sub question 1c identified three key emerging themes that described

Millennials perceptions of social exchanges within task delegation practices as (a) weekly face-

to-face meetings (b) learning opportunities, and (c) providing activities that align with their job

and organizational goal. Sub question 1d, Identified emerging themes that describe the attributes

of high-quality relationships as collaborative with direct and explicit communications.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Respectful

Open Communications

Open to Learning New Things

Engaged

Find Job That You Like

Honest

Exceed Expectations

Professionalism

Build Trust

Courage

Sub Question 1d: Employee Attributes


89

The participants’ defined leader and employee attribute that assist with high-quality

relationship development. Leaders' attributes that emerged from participant data involved

characteristics of good communications. Participants explained that managers with good

communications have direct and clear instructions. Managers will provide the basis for employee

learning. Managers’ openness to listen and accept new methods of handling work related tasks,

aided in leader-to-employee relationship development. Participants described employee

attributes as respectful and open social communications with a willingness to learn.

In the fourth stage of data analysis I combined terms and phrases within each sub section

of emerging themes. Figure 11 is a visual example I constructed for the purpose of this study as a

compilation of emerging themes within effective leader to employee relationship development.

As described by Braun, Clarke, and Terry (2014) the analysis included defining thematic

associations to assist with determining primary and subtheme categories. This exploratory phase

was exhaustive in that journaling, memos, and participant quotes advanced the analytical

process. The fifth stage involved a comprehensive review of participant responses to ensure that

duplicate accounts were removed. The final stage of data analysis provided an interpretative

description of recurrent themes across participant cases. The process provided two primary

themes and eleven subthemes that interpret Millennials perceptions of effective leader-to-

employee relationship development.

90

Figure 11. Combined emerging themes. Emerging themes within participants’ responses from all

sub questions provides a visual diagram of thematic associations within effective leader-to-

Millennial relationship development.

Results and Findings

Evaluation of the transcripts of 20 Millennial participant experiences with managers

within the workplace provided data to help answer the central research question: What are

Effective

Leader to Millennial

Relationship Development

Task Delegation Social Exchanges

• Clear Instructions

• Weekly Meetings

• Open-door Policy

• Goal Alignment

• Feedback

Millennial Employee Characteristics

• Respectful

• Open Commnications

• Open to Learning New Things

• Engaged

• Find a Job You Like

• Honest

• Exceed Expectatioms

• Professionalism

• Trustworthy

• Courage

Role Development Social Exchanges

• Empowerment

• Outside of Work Exchanges

• Mentored by Manager

• Learning from Experience

• Ownership

• Skills Building Tasks

• Constructive Criticism

Leader/Manager

Characteristics

• Direct Commumications

• Good Communications

• Task Delegation Risks

• Open to New Ways

• Approachable

• Provide Opportunities to Learn

• Understanding

• Align Job with Employee Skills

• Supportive

• Collaborative Enviromment

• Lead by Example

• Provide Flexibilty

• Mutual Respect

91

Millennials’ perceptions of effective leader-to-employee relationship development? Data

analysis using the NVivo 10 provided common emerging themes. Horizontalization of common

emerging themes from the analysis of four sub questions provided information needed to

interpret Millennials experiences to explain the essence of leader-to-employee relationship

development. As described by the LMX theory, leader, member, and exchange are three

elements that aid high-quality relationships.

The conceptualization of the LMX theory helped with the interpretation of emergent

themes to present a shared narrative. Thirty-Five emerging themes were combined and analyzed

for reporting qualitative results. Data coding and analysis identified empowerment and

reciprocity as two core themes within Millennials’ perceptions of effective leader-to-employee

relationship development. The following section provides a discourse of both primary and

subthemes found within the explication of transcript data. I provide tables, with examples of

participant responses for each identified theme.

Primary Theme 1: Empowerment

Empowerment within leader- to- employee relations allows sharing responsibilities to

provide employees with a sense of control and independence (Wong, Christina, Nerstad, &

Dysvik, 2014). Wong et al. proposed that empowerment strategies include (a) delegation of

creative and high-risk tasks, (b) access to resources, (c) managers sharing knowledge needed for

job performance, and (d) leader- to-employee collaboration to assist with organizational goal

achievement. According to Li, Wei, Ren, and Di (2015) empowerment can facilitate mutually

supportive behaviors in that employees feel a sense of obligation in response to affirmative

management practices. When participants were asked to share an experience that assisted with

92

developing their role in the company, 60% revealed that empowerment behaviors facilitated role

and relationship development (see Table 2).

Table 2

Primary Theme 1: Empowerment

Participant Response

8

“One experience is when I started working for my manager, she said ‘I want to

revamp the entire program. Do what you think its best.’ That type of thing. So she

somewhat just gave me the encouragement and the opportunity to do whatever I

saw fit to make the program better. She said, ‘I want to train the volunteers. I want

to have a process that everyone follows. I want everyone to be on the same page. I

want staff volunteers to understand what we do here and what we want from both

parties. But there isn’t a solid way that we do that now. I want you to make that

happen.”

12

“What assists me with developing in the company is when managers give me new

roles. For example, the president of our organization gave me a huge responsibility

for a major fundraising event. He wanted me to negotiate a sponsorship deal. I told

him, I’ve been here for a year, and you want me to negotiate a sponsorship deal for

the summer campaign. This is our biggest event of the year with a major company.

It was like Volkswagen of America. I said you realize someone else is the director

of development right?” He goes, ‘I don’t care, and I want you to do it!’ And I did.

And I don’t know how I did, but I did.”

17

“I think for me, my manager, most of the time because it’s the two of us, if he

couldn’t go to a meeting or if he had to do a presentation before board members, he

would send me. I mean it seems like such a simple thing, but he would give me an

opportunity to represent the Department and to represent him directly. If it were a

presentation, he wouldn’t just send me out there without information to help me

succeed. He tells me ‘this is what’s on the agenda, and this is what I need you to

make sure they know.”

Subtheme 1: Opportunities to Learn

Managers, who provide opportunities to learn by building an open platform to exchange

ideas, enable employee creativity and knowledge acquirement (Park, Song, Lim, Kim, 2014;

93

Rana & Goel, 2014). Participants expressed a proclivity for professional learning. Professional

learning included gaining knowledge and skills to assist with role development. In the data

analysis, 40% of research participants shared that task delegations and volunteering of new roles,

provides an opportunity to acquire skills and develop in their professional field (see Table 3).

Table 3

Subtheme 1:Opportunities to Learn


4 “When I’m with my manager, working over-time, I like spending those extra

hours on tasks that are not normally in my scope of job duties because there is

some other skill that I can probably learn out of it.”

11 “I’m more passionate about things that I don’t know a lot about. I think that has to

do with learning. So I’m passionate about learning therefore I’m passionate about

taking on a task that I don’t know a lot about.”

17 “I like it. I welcome it. I’m constantly learning. Like I said before, I was my

manager’s client at one time. I went through his training program and purchased

buildings. Now that I’m an employee, I’m continuously learning with new and

more complicated deals, and situations. So I’ve always chalked it up to a learning

experience. I’m all for it.”

Subtheme 2: Employees Must Express an Openness to Learn

Employees’ willingness to learn and accept new challenges helped establish effective

leader-to-Millennial employee relationships within organizations. The data collections process

explored employee attitudes toward role challenges. Participants explained that attitudes toward

learning contributed to effective relationship development. When participants were asked to give

advice to help employees build high-quality relationships with their manager, 35% of

participants shared that Millennial employees should express an openness to learn (see Table 4).

94

Table 4

Subtheme 2: Employees Must Express an Openness to Learn


10

“Being open to learning new things because one of the biggest things I

noticed and I find it sometimes in me too is that sense of, I don’t know how

to do this (rumbling paper). Almost like, asking the manager to do it for

me. I do see that with some of the interns or the younger employees.

Someone once said this to me and I love this quote, ‘everything is figure

out-able.’ So it’s true, especially with the internet and technology.

‘Everything is figured out-able.’ Just figure it out! I think that, if you’re

tired, not in the mood, if it doesn’t appeal to you, or you just don’t want to

figure it out, the attitude of ‘just show me how to do this’ can hold you

back.”

15 “Just educate yourself and be a sponge.”

16 “Employees should have the willingness to learn and an open mind.”

Subtheme 3: Mentoring

Mentoring takes place between a senior level executive and the new employee (Ghosh,

2014). According to Martin and Bok (2015), mentoring builds professional skills through

guidance; knowledge sharing that encourages employee confidence, and job satisfaction.

Millennials shared that managers who enacted guiding and mentoring methods inspired

organizational growth. When asked to explicate the social exchanges within effective role

development practices, 40% of participants explained that mentoring helped with job formation

(see Table 5).

95

Table 5

Subtheme 3: Mentoring


3

“It’s important that all the clients that we generate are clients that we keep.

So my managing partner wants to make sure that everything that we’re

doing is done the right way. He put an emphasis on that in the training

process.”

7

“In the beginning, I was new, and I think my manager was watching to see

if I could handle the work. Because she had taken on the role when the

position was empty, it was her baby for a while. I would go to her for

guidance. When she finally saw I could handle it, she let go of the reigns a

lot more and let me kind of fly with it. I still view her as a mentor because

she has been in the world for so long, and she has been successful.”

12 “My manager tells me all the time that her job is to make it so that I’m

prepared to take her job.”

Subtheme 4: Collaborative

Maier, Tavanti, Bombard, Gentile, and Bradford (2015) confirmed that Millennials value

a collaborative workplace environment. Collaborative work environments include all members in

the project development and execution processes (Brocke & Lippe, 2015). Participants

characterized collaborative social exchanges as leadership behaviors that provide a supportive

climate and inclusion of employee feedback. Results revealed that 50% of Millennials described

high-quality leader-to-employee relationships as a collaborative alliance for effective teamwork

(see Table 6)

.

96

Table 6

Subtheme 4: Collaborative


6

“Employees should be willing to work hard and work together with everyone,

collectively.”

8 “There’s not a job in the department that we all haven’t touched upon because

she’s created that type of relationship that you help your team.”

9

18

“Everyone share's everything, everyone talks about everything, and our desks are

so close. I’m not texting all day. I don't ever go on Facebook because I’m

engaging with everyone in the office.”

“I think managers should involve the employees in the process. It means that your

voice and opinion matters regardless of the outcome. It makes someone feel

appreciated, valued, and part of the effort going forward. I think it’s with

education or with business, you want them to buy-in, and you want them to have

the commitment because they feel like they’re apart of the system.”

Subtheme 5: Open Communications

Kupritz and Cowell (2011) define open communications as honest interactions that

provide employees with information to reduce negative assumptions. Transparent and informal

communications influence individual and collective performance (Farr-Wharton et al., 2012;

Wittig, 2012). Millennials perceive open communications as an effective component within

relationship development with managers. When asked to define open communications with his

or her manager, 65% of research participants described good communications within effective

leader-to-Millennial relationships as sincere and informal concerning work and personal

information (see Table 7)

97

Table 7

Subtheme 5: Open Communications


1

“My manager has a sit-down with the staff and goes over their professional

development and the things that they want to achieve in life so that it’s not that

you're just here to work and this is where your life is going to be forever. It’s more

like, what do you want to achieve moving forward? What are some of the steps

you want to take in your life? What are your personal and professional goals?”

7 “I think that informal communications are going to allow for a good working

environment. You don’t need to get along as friends, but you can stop talking

about work for a minute and say, how was your weekend? How is your daughter?

Having real moments, I think, make the business moments easier to have.”

16

17

“Managers talk to your employees. Just level with your employees include them in

the process of whatever you’re going thru in the organization.”

“I think openness in communications is right at the top of the list.”

Participant 17 explained the concept of openness in communication as:

“Transparency in business decisions while things are being done. Provide an

opportunity for us to understand what you’re doing is making a change and

growing the company in one way, shape, or form. So, it's not like we are valuing

just the work we’re individually doing. You see your contribution to the

company.”

Subtheme 6: Employee Openness

Researchers defined employee openness as a personality trait that provides a broad

perspective on work roles and relationships that stimulate creativity (Madrid & Patterson, 2015;

Park, Song, Lim, & Kim, 2014). Participants shared that employees should be open and honest in

their communications with managers. Openness was described as an employee attribute needed

for effective relationships with leaders. When asked to provide an employee attribute to assist

98

with role and relationship development, 25% perceived employee openness as a social exchange

used to share personal and professional dilemmas that may impede task completion and

relational exchanges (see Table 8).

Table 8

Subtheme 6: Employee Openness


8

“Employees should be open and honest about their mistakes. When I first

started out, I made a lot of mistakes. I’m not going to lie. More than someone

that would’ve had experience. When my supervisor approached me about it, I

didn’t put the blame on other people. I definitely owned my mistakes. When

you make mistakes, and you will, especially if you’re new at something, you

will definitely make mistakes. Own the mistakes you make. Say, you know

that’s my fault. I’m sorry. I can I make that better. Try to learn from others.”

14 “My model for everything in life is just be honest and that’s not to say that

you have to spill your secrets but you know be up front. Especially, if you

don’t know what you’re doing, Just ask. Because if you sit there and just try

to figure it out. you’re going to make a mistake.”

19

“In the past, I’ve always owned my mistakes ahead of time. So I’ll tell them,

“Hey listen, I know this was a bad decision.” When you own something, it is

much harder for them to come down on you. You don’t have to try to beat it

to a head that already understands.”

Subtheme 7: Direct Communications

Direct communications provide in-line face-to-face interactions between a manager,

employee, and organizational peers (Cole, 2015). Results indicate that 50% of participants agree

that the task delegation process should include face-to-face weekly meetings with shared

calendars and electronic communications forms of follow-up work instruction (see Table 9).

99

Table 9

Subtheme 7: Direct Communications


3

“My manager is not hidden behind some fancy office door. He’s out there with us.

You usually don’t see that. We share calendars in the office so we know when he’s

available”

4 “I think that if you have the ability to be in a smaller office where you can see your

staff, I think it’s good to pop in and have actual face to face time with them. To

know who your employees are and they get to know who you are as a leader. Also,

follow-up texts and emails can provide employees support”

13

18

“When I first started working with my previous managers I was trying to get my feet

underneath me and it was difficult with-out constant face-to-face contact. I felt

meetings were important to establish guidelines. Also, I think a clear and concise

chain of command with clear and concise marching orders, for the most part, at the

start is important. Then, eventually as you get more and more comfortable managers

should give employees more autonomy.”

“The educational system is somewhat difference from the business environment.

Teachers have autonomy to create lesson plans. The principals supervise the

academic department to make sure we are following operational protocols. That’s

how the system work, but I’d prefer if the principal would speak to us on a weekly

basis to keep up-to-date on some of the issues that we’re having in the classroom.”

Subtheme 8: Constructive Criticism

Constructive criticism will provide employees with cognizability of manager ideals and

expectations to enable organizational learning (Fowler & Wilford, 2016; Mishra, Boyton, &

Mishra, 2014). When participants were asked to describe elements for an effective leader-to-

employee relationship, 30% revealed that constructive criticism was an essential element used in

the relational process (see Table 10).

100

Table 10

Subtheme 8: Constructive Criticism


2

“I think constructive criticism in the review process is so beneficial.

Especially if you’re doing well, It’s great to hear constructive criticism if

you're doing badly. If no one tells you, how can you get better? I mean it’s all

in how you say it. If someone says, ‘you suck’, that’s not going to help your

work ethic. But if somebody sits you down and gives you positive

reinforcement and constructive criticism, you’re more than likely do better,

than if nobody said anything to you. Positive reinforcement after a big project,

that’s effective as well, like a pat on the back. That’s effective.”

8

18

“I think constructive criticism is a big thing. I feel that everyone makes

mistakes, especially when you come into a new role, but there is a definite

difference in how you handle that and how that you handle errors that can

definitely help you to encourage an employee or it can help deter the

employee from wanting to try something new to make something better.”

“A manager should be there just to provide different perspectives and not in a

critical way and not in a better way, just to hear the options and see what

works for you.”

Primary Theme 2: Reciprocity

Reciprocity is mutual trust and respect that enables a leader and employee to share

knowledge beyond role expectations (Torche & Valenzuela, 2011). Reciprocal behaviors

encourage a firm sense of responsibility and compensation whereas leaders may increase

resources and provide fringe benefits to serve the employees and vice-versa (Gkorezis, 2015;

Shin et al. 2012). Forty-five percent of Millennial participants explained that they felt a sense of

obligation based on the managers’ support and autonomy (see Table 11).

101

Table 11

Primary Theme 2: Reciprocity


1

“I mean I'm going into the office on a Saturday. I work until ten o’clock at

night. I do what I have to do because one, I respect the friendship, and two;

I'm not going to be a director of training and development for the rest of

my life. I want to build a relationship that will assist me with my career

goals.”

9

“My manager brought me to a level where I want to be professionally as an

advisor. He helped me understand the products, the logistics, and the

holistic planning side of things. He helped me understand the client’s needs

and provide services to fit their interests. But then I help, on my spare time

with social networking and marketing”

14 “He was always giving me projects and letting me do them on my own, but

also if I had questions or whatever, he was very supportive. He inspired me

to develop my role in the organization”

Subtheme 9: Trust

Chen, Lin, Yen (2014) affirmed that as leader-to-employee relationships mature, trust

increases. Manager trust in employee skills promotes knowledge sharing and task independence

(Hau et al., 2013). Participants associated trust with autonomy and increased responsibilities

within the company. When asked to name elements within effective leader to employee

relationships, 60% of participants identified trust as a component within effective relationship

development (see Table 12).

102

Table 12

Subtheme 9: Trust


12

“I would say definitely trust. In a sense, of trusting me to do the job and get the job

done, and with that, comes freedom. I don’t feel like I’m being micro-managed. I

mean there’s a lot of stuff being thrown at me all the time and I know what’s

important and what’s not.”

14 “Of course you’re there to get the job done as a manager, but you also have to first

trust your employees enough to give them the space to do the things on their own.”

15

“I feel like he does let me run with it, but if he didn’t feel it was right, he’s actually

listening to what I'm saying, he’s actually thinking about if it's right or not. If he

didn’t think it was right, I trust his reasons why he would say no.”

20 “I started to do some outreach and then slowly, I guess I proved that I could do

more things and can be trusted with more responsibilities and I started taking some

other things on and they kind of let me go with it.”

Subtheme 10: Manger’s Respect for Employee

Manager’s respect for employee skills supports relationship development and job

satisfaction (Pulakos, Hanson, Arad, & Moye, 2015; Van De Voorde, & Beijer, 2015). The

findings help determine that the delegation of meaningless tasks show a lack of respect for

employee time and aptitude. When asked to share feelings regarding the delegation of tasks

outside of his or her job description, 30% of participants expressed concerns about managers

delegating aimless tasks outside of regular duties with a lack of consideration toward employee

workload (see Table 13).

103

Table 13

Subtheme 10: Manager’s Respect for Employee


2

“Honestly, it kind of ticks me off. Like when she knows I’m doing a lot

and I’m really swamped, she will give me something real stupid to do like

faxing something for her kid’s soccer team. It’s minimal. It’s not like she

would ask me to do something extreme that I know I don’t have time for.

But sometimes those little things tick me off a little bit, because it makes

me feel, as though she doesn’t respect my time.

5 “She thinks that I’m her personal assistant. So and it really does frustrate

me. Again, I don’t have a problem doing stuff outside of my job duties and

I’m happy too, cause I’m bored, but as far as picking up your dry cleaning

for you because you don’t feel like going anywhere or getting address

labels for you like personal address labels that’s not something I need to

waste my day or concern my time with.”

19

“I’m a big fan of viewing it as an opportunity, when I’m given something

outside of my work duties. As long as it's not somebody dumping

something for no reason and it’s another person that can be doing the job

within their spectrum. I don’t like breaking out of the designated

workflows because there’s a reason for them.”

Subtheme 11: Employee Respect for Manager’s Role

Respect is the foundation for positive social exchanges between managers, employees,

and peers (Saunders & Tiwari, 2014; Zhang et al., 2012). Respectful exchanges occur when

parties seek to comply based on credibility (Carmeli, Dutton & Hardin, 2015). Participants

emphasized that reverent employee behaviors aid in positive social exchanges. Data analysis of

interview responses determined that 30% of participants perceived that employee’s respect of

manager’s role and work protocol is critical to effective relationship development (see Table 14).

104

Table 14

Subtheme 11: Employee Respect for Manager’s Role


9

“There’s a lot of access to information on social media. We might come off

very dismissive to an older generation manager or coworker. Because of

our generation’s ability to use technology to our advantage, we can be

disrespectful in our communications. I don't enjoy disrespect; I think you

should have a respect factor toward your manager and older coworker as

well.”

11

“I think you want to stick to a certain professional aspect. You have to

show clear respect. It’s ok to joke with them every now and again, but I

don’t go out with the sales manager to get drinks for a reason. I don’t want

to cross the line.”

18 “I think to speak obviously respectfully and professionally. For instance, if

you have a problem, say ‘here are my issues, I would like to see this done,

or I felt this was unrecognized.’ Whatever your issues may be, I think it's

unfair if you don’t voice it in a respectful manner that and then expect

things to change or be different.”

Qualities of Discrepant Cases

According to Booth, Carroll, Ilott, Low, and Cooper (2013), identifying discrepant cases

occurs after the data collection and analysis process. Patton (2002) confirmed that discrepant

cases are unique in comparison to the participant population. Although purposeful sampling

assisted with minimizing disconfirmation within sample data, unforeseen attributes demand

further exploration of the participant’s experience. Manual and structural coding analysis of

participant responses helped with identifying complex cases.

Discrepant cases in this research are participants within familial relationships with the

managers that may skew data analysis of the traditional manager to employee relationships. Two

105

participants in this research study worked in family businesses. Both participants are primary

stakeholders within the growth and sustainability of the organization. Information retrieved

helped to understand the similarities and differences within employees' expectations of managers

within the family business and non-family businesses. Participant 13 had low expectations based

on family methods of social exchanges and protocol. Participant 13 admitted

“First, it's a little offsetting approaching a family member as a boss. It's really

complicated. I remember when I started he asked me specifically, he says listen you can’t

call my dad in the office. You have to figure out something else to call me. He goes by

his last name in the office, but it's weird to call someone your own last name.”

Although the family business culture may contribute to the compartmentalization of

family and professional issues, increased levels of commitment were common within role

development within the organization. Their contribution was valued in that participants worked

outside of the family business prior which helped in their assessment and comparison of past and

current manger- to- employee relationships. Both participants worked for more than one manager

for over one year prior to joining the family business. When asked what advice to give to

managers?

Participant 11 shared, that “managers should leave their personal problems at home. I’ve

seen with previous employers, managers not able to separate their work from their social

life or their personal life and I think that’s a big thing that a lot of people have problems

with.

Participant 13 responded, “you know, I like a manager who is firm, with a one-on-one

dynamic. I prefer working under one person, knowing what one person wants. Having

106

worked under both with one person directly and a bunch of different people when you

work under a bunch of different people; what person “X” want isn’t what person “A”

wants. What person “A” wants isn’t what person “C” wants, and they all have different

styles. If you did it for person “X” and he thinks it’s good, then person “A” may not like

it and give you a bunch of changes.”

Participants’ work experiences with prior employers help explore relationship development in

various systems. The discrepant cases support and provide depth to the participants’ narrative of

leader-to-Millennial employee relationship development. Future comparative analysis of

Millennials within the family and non-family businesses may determine if familial values

influence relationship development with regard to organizational learning and retention.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

A discourse in the trustworthiness of data collection and analysis, substantiate research

results for review. The evaluations of (a) creditability (b) transferability (c) dependability (e)

confirmability, and (f) data saturation procedures, help attain valid and primary data for analysis.

Results of research rigor qualify the cumulative interpretation of Millennial perceptions of

leader-to-employee relationship development.

Creditability

Sampling behavior, increase value within qualitative research endeavors (Houghton et al.

2013). Establishing creditability included verbalization of the informed consent, journaling ideas,

and member checking of participants’ transcripts. Note-taking and researcher awareness help

strengthen my interview style employed with each participant. The first set of interviews I

noticed that participants were distracted when I took notes. Before each meeting, I informed the

107

participant that both digital recording and note taking would ensue throughout the interview.

Although note taking was limited, each time, the participants were distracted and looked at my

notebook. Moving forward, I decided to engage the participant with minimal breaks in eye

contact. This active engagement allowed the participant to relax and speak informally about their

experience. Immediately after each interview, I journaled my thoughts for follow-up and in-

depth discussions if needed during the member checking process. Digital recordings and member

checking were a critical component used for clarity.

Lincoln and Gruba (1985) maintain that prolonged engagement prior, during, and after

the interview process. I established rapport during the process of gathering participants. During

the young professional group meetings, I would provide a brief summary of my research study

and participant requirements. I extended time at the end of the meeting to answer questions

regarding the research, interview process, and dissemination of results. An essential element

stressed throughout meetings and discussions were participant confidentiality and schedule

flexibility. Email correspondence increased participant confidence and trust. Correspondence

questions and concerns were answered within twenty-four hours via electronic or telephone

communications.

The follow-up interview questions help broaden ideas, feelings, and depth of relational

experiences. Participants were debriefed after the interview. Participants were asked if they had

additional information to share regarding their work experiences with their managers. The time

given enabled the participant to discuss in-depth factors they felt assisted with the effective

relationship development. Next, the participants were instructed on the following in the

debriefing process (a) projected date of the completed transcript, (b) time required for member

108

checking of vague information, unclear terms and meaning, (c) notified participant of rights and

procedures used for research withdrawal, (d) information for continued open communications

regarding the research study, and (e) permission to invite others to participate in the research.

Follow-up emails were sent after participant interviews thanking them for their time and

cooperation.

Transcription of data occurred three to five business days after the participants’

interview. Participants were sent transcripts with contact information, if needed, to address

questions and inconsistencies within the document. I did not receive notice of participant

concerns. However, two of the research participants shared concerns that conversational

language and filler terms may deter the data analysis process. After reassuring participants that

the language was appropriate, in that the questions and conversational dialogue help articulate

their experience. Both participants agreed and provided approval for data analysis. Coding

occurred after participants acknowledged that transcripts were authentic and represented their

individual experiences with managers. Manual and computerized coding helped to minimize

possible biases than can occur during effective data analysis.

Transferability

Vagel (2014) and Miles et al. (2014) qualitative discussions entailed a thorough

evaluation of transferability measures within data samples and analysis. Maximum variations and

detailed descriptions demonstrate transferability and authenticity within (a) participant selection,

(b) data collection, (c) analysis, and (d) reporting methods. Maximum variation of Millennial

participants from various organizational backgrounds contributed to an authentic understanding

of leader-to-Millennial employee relationship development. Open-ended questions aid in the

109

exploration of individual experiences. Follow-up questions encouraged thought provoking

dialogue that resulted in a participant narrative of relational events that contributed to role

development.

The recollection and documentation of participant experiences provided the framework

for structural coding, analysis, and reporting. The results help create rich and thick descriptions

of participants' relational experiences. Freeman (2014) proposed that the thick description

process should occur throughout the research. Awareness and involvement of detailed thoughts,

responses, and surroundings aid in the manifestation of the research phenomenon. Thick

descriptions provide depth and vision for researcher interpretation and analysis. According to

Ponterotto (2014), thick descriptions encompass transparency and details using participants'

organic expressions. Journals and memos were used as the foundation for interpreting the

complexities of the human relational experience. The vivid descriptions shared within data

analysis, and reports of research results may broaden knowledge needed for future research

evaluations.

Dependability

Proof of dependability is simultaneous within the conversion of the steps taken to collect,

study, and report participant data (Munn, Porritt, Lockwood, Aromataris, & Pearson, 2014). The

member checking process authenticated data transcripts for analysis, which showed evidence that

the origin of information is reliable for coding. Aligned with Lincoln and Gruba (1995),

establishing an audit trail and providing reflexivity throughout the inquiry process were crucial

elements of rigor in this qualitative study. Houghton et al. (2013) insisted that comprehensive

note taking, journaling, and transcription analyzed within NVivo aid in auditing bias

110

representations of information. The data analysis process identified common themes within 20

participant interviews. Common themes were examined within the interview question construct.

Surrounding content describing participants’ experiences supply a synoptic articulation of events

during leader-to-Millennial relationship development. The audit checking and member checking

process were applied to assure that all information was included that may have been missed

within both manual and structural coding processes.

Confirmability

According to Miles et al. (2014) confirmability, addressing issues of trustworthiness

include the evaluation of elements that influence researcher's judgement within data collection

and analysis. Patton (2002) and Merriam (2014) determined that maximum variability provides a

strategy to investigate the authenticity within the representation of various sample sources.

Purposeful sampling of Millennial participants from diverse fields of management exposed an

authentic chronicle of the research phenomenon. Setting up an audit trail through journaling

transferred into NVivo prompt a deeper investigation of participant experiences. The reflexive

approach suspends judgements that hindered effective coding and analysis (Lincoln & Gruba,

1985).

Data Saturation

O’Reilly and Parker (2012) affirmed that methods to obtain data saturation are undefined

and obscure. Dworkin (2012) proposed that saturation occurred when emerging themes ceased,

resulting in repetitious coding and redundancy within participant interviews. The study

population included 20 participants. After coding and analysis of Participant 12, saturation of

key emerging themes occurred. Pre-scheduling of interviews prior to data saturation enabled a

111

thorough evaluation of emerging themes within the remaining eight participant interviews.

Divergent themes were found within Participant 11 and Participant 13 responses. Stakeholder

and familial conceptualization of trust within relational exchanges emerged. In both cases,

participants worked for a paternal family member who may contribute to increased levels of

commitment and trust within the leader-to-employee relationship. Although these familial

themes emerged, the evaluation of these participants’ relational experiences provided depth and

cumulative value. Data saturation is appropriate in that sampling resulted in exhaustive practices

needed to understand the essence of leader-to-Millennial relationship development.

Summary of Findings

The objective of the study is to explore the Millennial experiences within leader-to-

Millennial relationship development. Chapter 4 formalized and disclosed the steps taken during

data collection and analysis. The finding extends management knowledge of Leader-to-

Millennial employee relationship development within organizations. The interpretative

phenomenological approach confirmed that Millennials understand that learning from managers

is necessary for organizational and professional growth. Millennial employees rely on managers

to provide knowledge through empowering social exchanges found within high-quality relations.

High-quality relationships assist with organizational learning and retention (Chuang, Chen, &

Tsai, 2015; Metcalf & Benn, 2013). Participants identified that building an effective relationship

with their manager helped with role development. The findings rendered the following responses

to answer the research central and sub questions.

112

Research Central Question

Research central question: What are Millennials perceptions of effective leader-to-

employee relationship development? Research analysis revealed that Millennials perceived

effective relationship development as a relational process. Align with the LMX theory, findings

show leader task delegation that provided challenges and opportunities to learn facilitated role

development. Leader empowerment behaviors support performance and commitment. The

results also confirmed that Millennials preferred a collaborative working environment conducive

to knowledge sharing. Millennials embraced mentoring as part of the training process. As a

result, Millennials felt a sense of obligation to reciprocate with increased initiative. Millennials

perceived that accepting challenging tasks would enhance their professional skill-set.

Sub Question 1a

Sub question 1a: How do Millennials perceive leader-to-employee relationships in the

workplace? Data analysis determined that Millennials perceived leader-to-employee relations as

containing (a) open communications, (b) employee autonomy, (c) mutual trust, (d) support, and

(e) learning opportunities. Participants’ shared that as leaders began to relinquish control to

employees; mutual trust was established that enabled delegation of future challenging roles.

Findings confirmed that future task delegations stimulated employees' desire to learn.

Sub Question 1b

Sub question 1b: How do Millennials describe leader-to-employee social exchanges

within role development practices? Millennials described social exchanges within role

development as empowering. Manager’s knowledge and trust, promote employee confidence. In

return, Millennials felt comfortable with accepting increase tasks. Social exchanges provide a

113

platform for receiving knowledge to assist with organizational advancement. Social exchanges

include weekly face-to-face interactions that allow task delegation, mentoring, and facilitate role

development. Participants shared that working experience before their current job helped with

professional development. In literature, Millennials are stereotyped as job-hoppers. Findings

suggest that Millennials learn from their relationships with prior employers and view frequent

changes in employment as a new challenge with an opportunity to learn. The knowledge

acquired helped with current and future organizational performance.

Sub Question 1c

Sub question 1c: How do Millennials describe leader-to-employee social exchanges

within task delegation practices? Millennials described leader-to-employee social exchanges

within task delegation practices as direct communications to guide and support organizational

role development. Direct communications empower innovation. Innovative social interactions

provide an opportunity to brainstorm new strategies on current issues affecting the

organization. In high-quality social exchanges, leaders provide constructive criticism to

authorize employee organizational performance. Data analysis of participant transcripts

described constructive criticism as leaders explaining issues with performance, in a manner that

renders alternatives and encourages employee suggestions.

Sub Question 1d

How do Millennials describe high-quality relationships? Based on the information

provided by participants, Millennials described high-quality relationships as collaborative work

environments with direct and explicit communications. Participants explained that leaders should

develop direct communication skills to promote effective relationship development. Managers

114

should trust employees with new job roles. Participants view micromanaging as a deterrent to

relationship efficiency. Participants suggest that managers embrace employee creativity.

Employees with creative ideas may present new methods to solve or complete tasks to boost

collaborative performance. In conclusion, high-quality relationship development is a social

exchange platform where both leaders and employees receive mutual benefits.

Chapter 4 contained the research design and methods that helped attain purposeful

samples to explore Millennials shared experiences within leader-to-employee relationship

development. Current research proposed that Millennial's prefer participative leader-to-employee

social exchanges to build relationships (Chou, 2012; Day, 2014). According to Hines and

Carbone (2013), Millennials prefer a decentralized approach to communication with frequent

feedback as opposed to the traditional top-down knowledge filtration systems established within

management. However, minimal information was found in the current literature to assist with

understanding Millennials’ concept of effective leader-to-employee relationship development. In

this research study, participants shared experiences to broaden management’s body of knowledge

with regard to the retention and learning of Millennial employees. In Chapter 5, I expound on

research findings, the limitations of the study, recommendations for future research, and the

implications for positive social change.

115

Chapter 5: Interpretation of the Findings

The purpose of this qualitative interpretative phenomenological study required the

exploration of Millennial employees’ experiences within leader-to-Millennial relationship

development. The interpretative phenomenological research design helped collect and analyze

data from 20 participants' experiences to understand leader-to-Millennial relationship

development. The information broadens management knowledge within the retention and

learning of Millennial employees. Emerging themes described Millennials’ perceptions of

relationship development as a relational process that incorporates both leader and employee

attributes. Reciprocity developed because of an increased sense of obligation toward leaders who

provided an empowering and collaborative work environment.

Discussion

The research finding determined that Millennial employees perceive effective leader-to-

employee relationship development as social exchanges that empower individual development.

As a result, both leader and employee reciprocate with personal knowledge and resources to

assist with mutual goal achievement. Empowerment behaviors were described as providing (a)

opportunities to learn, (b) mentoring, (c) collaborative environment, (d) open communications,

(e) direct communications, and (f) constructive criticism. Employee reciprocity is an effect of

leader empowerment behaviors. Millennials perceive reciprocity as an increased sense of

obligation in response to leader trust and mutual respect developed through daily social

exchanges that enable and sustains high-quality relationship development. Figure 12 is a model I

constructed for the purpose of this study to provide an understanding of my respondents’

perceptions of effective leader-to-Millennial employee relationship development.

116

Figure 12. Effective leader-to-Millennial employee relationship development model. The leader-

to-Millennial employee relationship development includes the leader as the role-maker and

Millennial employee as the role-taker. The leader initiates the relationship development process.

Leader delegation of task with the support of empowerment behaviors aid in the creation of

Millennial learning and reciprocity. As Millennial employees fulfill role expectations, leaders

increase trust needed to assign new challenges. As the relationship matures, the leader

relinquishes more control to the Millennial employee.

Empowerment Behaviors

Empowerment facilitates individual work satisfaction and increased performance (Ertürk

& Vurgun, 2015). According to Li-wen (2014) manager empowerment behaviors help mediate

employee values toward work autonomy, build the internal confidence needed within highly

Leader

Role-maker

Millennial Employee

Role-taker

Leader Empowerment

Behaviors

Employee Reciprocity Fulfill Leader Expectations,

Increase Skills, Offer Knowledge, and

Resources

Leader Trust Increases Delegation of New Roles, Resources,

and Learning Opportunities

117

competitive environments. In this research, Participants’ sense of empowerment assisted with

high-quality relationship development. Millennials described empowerment as managers’

activities that provide a work culture that inspires learning. The evidence further suggests that

managers’ empowerment behaviors include task delegation practices that challenge employees’

critical thinking abilities and skills.

Millennial participants explained that knowledge and hands-on experience helped build

confidence. The delegation of new roles shows employees that managers trust their professional

capabilities. Mentoring plays an executive role in ensuring that risks are minimized in that

managers engage and guide Millennial employees during emergent challenges. Emergent

challenges are incidents that occur that require an immediate response, critical thinking, and

senior-level experience (Scarlet, 2013; Ulaga & Loveland, 2014).

Although managers’ empowerment behaviors contribute to effective leader-to-Millennial

relationship development, participants contend that employees must express and openness to

learning. The research data showed that openness to learning is displayed when employees

accept work challenges outside of their knowledge scope. Openness to learning was also

described as administering honest self-assessments and ownership of mistakes. According to

30% of research participants, professional errors provide managers with an opportunity to offer

constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is perceived by Millennials as a mentoring

approach to help retain organizational knowledge. Managers, who use mistakes as an opportunity

to guide, increase Millennial employee receptivity and respect. Effective employee relationships

start with honest communications done through face-to-face meetings. Participants identified that

an open-door policy helped build trust and increased collaborative performance. Consistent

118

collective behaviors that share knowledge and decision-making, increase employee commitment

(Lam, Xu, and Chan, 2015). Managers’ communications that inform and provide constructive

criticism strengthen leader-to-employee allegiance (Michael, 2014; Gkorezis et al., 2015;

Gallicano, 2013). Participants expressed that manager verbal communications can encourage

independence. The dialogue that occurs after an error enables the learning process needed for

organizational growth.

Results indicate that providing an efficient mentoring model and encouraging collective

problem solving contribute to Millennial employee reciprocity. Managers’ interest in Millennial

organizational development enlivens employee accountability. Participants revealed that when

managers shared knowledge, resources, and trust within task delegations, they were eager to take

on future responsibilities. Managers’ trusting behaviors helped with relationship maturation.

Participants reported that acquiring more responsibilities supported organizational learning and

performance. In response, leaders delegated challenging tasks and shared control in the execution

of critical operational roles.

Manager and employee respect, support high-quality relationship development. Mangers’

respect for employees’ role and skills aid in goal achievement, organizational growth, and

creativity (Carmeli et al., 2015). Millennial participants shared that they felt undervalued when

managers delegated tasks neglecting employee current workload and skillset. Courteous

interactions help gain trust needed to motivate high-quality relationship development (Saetren &

Laumann, 2014). The relational process is interactive. Participants shared that employee

reverence for managers’ competency and decision-making could aid in effective social

exchanges needed to drive innovation and problem solving. In agreement with Clarke and

119

Mahadi (2015), mutual respect enables psychological growth and self-worth required to increase

organizational trust and commitment.

Reciprocity

Identified in the LMX theory, reciprocity of knowledge, resources, and skills is a product

of high-quality relationship development (Aarons & Sommerfeld, 2012; Caimo & Lomi, 2014).

According to Degado-Marquez, Hurtado-Torres, and Aragon-Correa (2012), trust aids in

reciprocal behaviors. The authors affirmed that as a leader and employee increase trust within

their relationship, expectations toward future roles and behaviors broaden. Individuals within the

relationship interchange trustor and trustee social behaviors (Thielmann & Hilbig, 2014). A

trustor is an individual with organizational expectations who guides risk-taking behaviors toward

the trustee in a dyadic relationship (Jones & Shah, 2015). Jones and Shah further explained that a

trustee is the individual responsible for upholding trustor’s expectations and role fulfillment.

As individuals within organizational relations observe and experience trust, they respond

in a similar manner (Liu & Wang, 2013). Berneth, Walker, and Harris (2015) determined that

feelings of obligation occur as trustee fulfills reciprocity demands. The trustor provides resources

to satisfy and complete the reciprocal process (Jones & Shah, 2015). Relationship quality

influences the reciprocity process in that high-quality relationships positively affect both trustor

and trustee behaviors (Casimir et al., 2014). As the dyadic relationship matures, reciprocity

behaviors provide mutual benefits to both leader and employee.

Reciprocity behaviors appeared within Millennial participants’ descriptions of high-

quality relationship elements. Participants revealed trustworthiness as an essential component

within manager’s risk-taking within task delegations. Because of effective relationship

120

development, individuals disbursed time and knowledge to assist with collective goal

achievement. Aligned with LMX literature, participants shared that as the relationship matured;

leaders delegated challenging roles with increased autonomy. Participants felt compelled to

complete assigned tasks with hopes of obtaining challenging roles to reinforce learning.

The research findings established that reciprocity behaviors are a result of effective

relationship development. Informal social interactions assisted in the reciprocity process. Leader-

to-employee relationships that allowed the Millennials to share issues, where the managers

provided counsel and resources for personal growth, facilitated the reciprocity process.

Employees were compelled to take on differing roles to assist managers. Participant expressed

that they took the initiative to support managers during strenuous and adverse circumstances.

Millennials Shared Experiences of Relationship Development

The leader-to-Millennial relationship development process includes (a) role-making, (b)

role-taking, and (c) role routinization. Participants communicated that manager’s ability to share

knowledge through guidance and support help meet organizational challenges. The relationship

development process enabled employee learning and professional confidence.

Role-making. The LMX was significant in providing the foundation for qualitative

analysis of leader as role-maker. Research findings identified that leaders provide job criteria,

strategies, and guidance for employee role development. Participants’ esteem of managers’

knowledge and experience, as an essential component of job performance, inspired the demand

for face-to-face communications. Leader-to-employee communication helped build an

understanding of individual role placement within the overall success of the organization.

121

Role-taking. Participants revealed that comprehension of job criteria, skill, and leader

empowerment behaviors resulted in employee’s openness to acquire challenging tasks. Leader-

to-Millennial social interactions that provide constructive criticism and guidance helped build

employee confidence. Kelly and Bisel (2014) affirmed that consistent social exchanges between

leader and employee build trust needed for high-risk task delegations. Millennial participants

perceived that leader risk-taking, through delegating challenging tasks outside of current role,

provides an opportunity for personal development and organizational growth.

Role routinization. Role routinization occurs throughout role development (Kelley &

Bisel, 2014). In the role routinization stage, leader and employee engage purposely for

organizational goal achievement (Osman & Nahar, 2015). The findings of this study identified

that Millennials responded to leader mentorship and empowerment during role routinization.

Leadership behaviors stimulate interdependence and reciprocity in that participants expressed an

increased sense of responsibility and eagerness to work toward organizational success. Results

support collaboration and goal sharing as possible components of job satisfaction. Shared

organizational goals are the foundation for increased performance and retention (Berson, Da'as,

& Waldman, 2015).

Analysis of Gap Found in Literature Review

The themes in shared participants’ experiences warrant a deeper understanding of

effective leader-to-Millennial relationship development. Evaluation of study results and current

research within the literature review, help minimize the gap in managements’ conceptualization

of Millennials in the workplace to promote learning and retention. Research rigor enriches

meaning with regard to the relational process of employee development. Study results from in-

122

depth interviews incorporate elements to minimize leadership concerns towards implementing

organizational change in the multigenerational workplace. The following will evaluate results of

this study and literature reviewed regarding (a) Millennials and traditional hierarchical structures,

(b) communications and socialization skills, (c) learning and knowledge acquirement, (d)

leadership preferences, and (e) Millennials and retention.

Millennials and traditional hierarchical structures. Eversole et al. (2012) proposed

that developing leader-to-Millennial relationships challenge traditional hierarchical systems.

Traditional hierarchical systems incorporate top-down filtration of information and power

distance that hinder the flow of knowledge needed for Millennial learning (Brown et al., 2015).

Participants shared that managers who incorporate an “open-door” policy, established a culture

for knowledge acquirement and interactive engagement. Workplace environments that allow

employees to interact and observe managers behaviors, encourage Millennial organizational

contribution (Graybill, 2014). Research findings disconfirm seminal research theorist who claims

that the cohort prefers digital and technological social platforms for workplace engagement

(Twenge & Campbell, 2008). Qualitative analysis shows that Millennial employees demand

relational connections to assist with learning and commitment.

The research findings broaden Hershatter and Epstein (2010) claims that Millennials will

acquire information from members outside of their direct chain of command. Participants

acknowledged that their relationships with their manager provided valuable information essential

for organizational advancement. Aligned with Bremer et al. (2013) and Winter and Jackson

(2014), daily social engagement in the workplace enable active role development. Participants

understood that traditional hierarchical structures provide guidelines needed for organizational

123

cultural development and knowledge sharing. In-depth interviews revealed that as the manager to

employee relationship matures, Millennials expect work autonomy required for professional

confidence and growth.

Millennials’ communication and socialization skills. Chou (2012) proposed that

Millennial socializations influence organizational changes in leadership systems. The author

proposed that communications within executive departments encourage systemic and transparent

engagement policies. Hays (2014) affirmed that periodic meetings and open dialogue regarding

business vision and mission contribute to organizational performance during rapid advancing

markets and globalization. Participants identified that weekly face-to-face meetings and shared

calendars provide a platform for transparent and direct communications regarding organizational

challenges and goals.

Research findings and current literature are the basis for surmising that Millennial

employees embrace constructive criticism and effective communications process. Mishra et al.

(2014) proposed that employee perceptions of effective internal communications increase trust

and organizational engagement. In addition, effective communications include authentic,

relevant, and prompt, responsive behaviors. Mishra et al. research aligns with participants’

perceptions of effective communications within leader-to-employee relationship development.

Result analysis identified that communications within role development include timely and

transparent conversations that aided in understanding employee mistakes and dilemmas.

Millennials shared that empowering and supportive social exchanges build critical thinking skills

needed to minimize redundant work errors.

124

Research results confirmed that leadership exchanges help with knowledge sharing and

learning. Participants’ perceived mentorship as a primary source of learning support that allowed

a leader and employee to interact to build trust. As a result of ongoing communications within

relationship development, employees commit to organizational goal and performance strategies.

The study does not explore the type of dialogue or language shared within informal social

interactions within relationship development. However, participants expressed those managers

who provide a platform to exchange personal and professional information help build trust.

During interviews, participants shared that employee openness and honesty aid in

effective relationship development. Aligned with LMX theory; results confirmed that employee

behaviors influence leader’s receptivity and eagerness to share organizational knowledge (Imran

& Fatima, 2013; Uhl-Bien et al. 2014). Millennial work distress may contribute to the lack of

honest communications regarding skill aptitude. Participants suggested that Millennial

employees should immediately take responsibility for mistakes. Constructing a professional

dialogue with leaders to share task dilemmas and comprehension difficulties build trust within


The findings suggest that social intelligence may play an essential role needed to

strengthen Millennial’s skills within professional communications development. Social

intelligence is an individual’s ability to create a platform to communicate and express feelings

and ideas with others within an intimate setting or group (Huvila, Ek, & Widén, 2014; Rahim,

2014). Social intelligence incorporates (a) confidence and self-respect, (b) clarity of expression,

(c) awareness of social strategies (d) authenticity, and (e) empathy (Njoroge & Yazdanifard,

2014). Researchers confirmed that social intelligence assists with knowledge absorption in that

125

organizational members retain information based on increased social awareness and

resourcefulness to engage management for optimal learning (Nouri, Pourghaz, & Jenaabadi,

2015).

Millennials’ learning and knowledge acquirement. Seminal generational researchers

determined that technology performs a crucial role in Millennial learning and knowledge

acquirement (Howe & Straus, 2009; Twenge, 2007). Social engagements within a professional

setting fortify organizational learning and knowledge transfer (Hadar, 2013; Sung & Choi,

2014). Investigation of Millennial learning and knowledge process help understand components

to assist leaders with providing resources to encourage employee organizational involvement

(Trees, 2015). Leader-to-Millennial employee relative effectiveness contributes to the belief that

the cohort prefers social learning. Day et al. (2014) contends that leaders, who incorporate robust

social engagements with employees, provide the foundation for high-quality relationship

development within distinct organizational groups.

In contrast to the researchers' belief that Millennials prefer technological methods for

learning and knowledge acquirement, participants stressed that face-to-face interactions and

constructive criticism provide the best methods for knowledge acquirement (Berman & Marshall,

2014; Jorgensen, 2003; Twenge, 2007). Participants, who experienced mentoring and

empowering interactions with managers, found greater job satisfaction and express eagerness to

accept additional roles to increase learning. Participant responses confirm Balda Mora (2011)

and Gosh (2014) assertion that knowledge is relative. The authors explain that social exchanges

found in mentorship underwrite learning advancement. Although this study does not explore or

define the Millennial learning process, emerging themes provide a shared narrative explaining

126

relationship values that advance management research concerning the implementation of leader

social skills to enable employee learning for job performance.

Millennials’ leadership preferences. In seminal studies, researchers identified

Millennial leadership preferences as a core component in the development of effective

management systems (Howe & Strauss, 2009; Twenge, 2013). Further investigation in

management literature established that Millennial employees prefer decentralized leaderships

methods and subsequently, challenge traditional hierarchical internal communications structures.

Johnston (2013) proposed that Millennial employees prefer guidance and mentorship in contrast

to transactional and transformational methods of leadership. According to Bass and Bass (2009),

transactional leaders encourage employees through tangible resources to complete organizational

goals. Bass and Bass advised that transformational leaders encourage and enforce methods to

help employees exceed organizational expectations.

The central problem and purpose of this study did not assert Millennial leadership

preferences as a key element within relationship development. Instead, the research required

participants to describe the essence of relationship development. The research findings from in-

depth interviews extend management knowledge concerning Millennial preferences of leadership

methods for relationship development. Participants’ responses suggest that Millennials prefer

collaborative leadership systems. Participants described collaborative leadership systems as the

involvement of employee ideas and concepts to manage and complete an organizational process.

Participants agreed that teamwork is essential. In particular, managers should include employee

skills, ideas, and feedback within change initiatives. Aligned with Payton (2015) and Braun et al.

127

(2013) studies, sharing and mutual engagement help in developing effective internal

relationships needed to increase employee productivity.

Millennials and retention. Millennials perceive social interactions as a bi-directional

pathway to share information of mutual benefit, defined within the employee’s psychological

contract (Kultalahti & Viitala, 2015). A psychological contract is a dynamic mutual employment

agreement that incorporates the perceptions and cognition of organizational role performance

(Windle and von Treur, 2014). Researchers determined that the psychological contract eventuate

during initial interaction and recruitment (Osman & Nahar, 2015). Managers’ expectations

influence the hiring process. Organizational goals provide managers with the guidelines to

establish job descriptions and role demands during the interview process (Chien & Lin, 2012).

Employee cognition of professional role and task associated with job placement helps build

perceptions toward individual and organizational values (Mead & Manner, 2012).

The psychological contract is a predictor of manager satisfaction and employee retention

(Ng et al., 2013). Manager and employee differences in perception, concerning performance

quality, affect contract stability (Festings & Scahfer, 2014). Restubog, Zagenczyk, Bordia,

Bordia, and Chapman (2015) proposed that a psychological contract breach occurs because of

employee perceptions of instability. Restubog et al. affirmed that employee perception creates

negative behaviors toward leaders and organizations. Understanding social changes within

psychological contract expectations help broaden management knowledge. Feastings and

Schaefer confirm that generational difference provides a new framework for defining

psychological contract violations that may enable increased retention of young professionals in

the workplace.

128

Direct evaluation of Millennials’ perception of employee psychological contract

phenomenon was not addressed in qualitative interviews. However, to access participants

conceptualization of effective relationship development, Millennial expectations of social

exchanges was an essential component in exploring and gathering themes for a shared narrative.

Participants’ expectations helped determine that leaders’ empowerment behaviors provided

components to support employee learning and reciprocity. In conclusion, learning opportunities

are critical to role commitment in that social exchanges that promote knowledge transfer engage

Millennial employees and assist with organizational development.

Increased retention of Millennials in the workplace aid in organizational learning and

professional development in that the culture embraces activities to support the knowledge

transfer process (Umamaheswari & Krishnan, 2015). In agreement with the current literature,

Millennial retention is low compared to older generations in the workplace. The United States

Department of Labor determined that the Millennial average tenure is 3.0 years compared to

Boomer employee average of 10.4 years. The average tenure of Millennial participants in this

study is 3.475 years. Although the average is slightly higher than the United States Labor

Statistics, further studies within particular organizational fields should determine, given the

market and growth potential, employee retention rates for performance measures.

Interview evaluations explored participants’ feelings toward social exchanges and

expectation involving task delegation and role development. Themes identified that Millennial

employees desire advancement opportunities within organizations and embrace challenges to

increase learning and self-reliance. Increased learning includes gaining information to help with

professional growth and maturation. Activities associated with building skills inside and outside

129

of the organization shape the reciprocal relationship with managers. Participants expressed that

managers’ consideration of individual goals enabled informal and open exchanges. Manager

social behaviors encouraged employee commitment and satisfaction.

Limitations of the Study

In the research proposal, I provided two limitations of the qualitative evaluation of

Millennial perceptions of leader-to-employee relationship development. The first limitation

entailed the individual evaluation of Millennial employees' perceptions instead of both leader

and Millennial employee responses to relationship development. The qualitative assessment of

20 Millennial participant experiences in leader-to-Millennial relationship development did not

integrate the exploration of the managers' perspective. The sole evaluation of Millennials

experience provided data on experiences and social exchanges needed for interpretative

phenomenological analysis.

Incorporating the manager’s perspective may validate or disconfirm Millennial

perceptions of professional relationship development. Identification of similarity and differences

may provide elements to enhance leadership style within the multigenerational workplace.

Researcher’s evaluations of the leader-to-member exchanges have examined employee’s

attitudes toward leaders as a key determinant of relationship development (Fisk & Friesen,

2012). The conceptual design is common when exploring employee perceptions within the

workplace.

The second limitation of the research study is professional experiences and biases may

influence my attitude towards Millennial participants. According to Patton (2002), personal

experience is a limitation and may hinder the efficacy of data collection and analysis of

130

participant experiences. As a small business consultant, I am often challenged with providing

resources and knowledge to assist owners with managing the multigenerational workplace. In

particular, developing work systems to attract and retain the youngest member of today's

workforce. Experiences influenced my doctoral endeavor. The clients I have serviced had

numerous issues with the socialization and retention of Millennials within their workplace.

Procedures applied aligned with Berger (2015) reflexive approach for reducing bias. Developing

a method early on in the research developmental stages helped to minimize preconceptions and

judgments throughout the process. The reflexive strategy was critical to the credibility and

dependability of data sampling and analysis.

Recommendations

Recommendations for further research include exploring dyadic dialogue that may

provide a holistic perspective of leader and Millennial employee characteristics that contribute to

effective relationship development. Research methods should include the exploration of all paths

of daily communications. Daily communications within leader-to-Millennial employee dyads

include verbal dialogue within task delegation, emails, text messages, and meeting recordings to

examine the core of leadership communication concerning Millennial employee relationship

development. Investigation of tone and word placement within an everyday conversation can

expound on empowerment patterns that enable effective relationship development.

Advancements in research should explore leader and Millennial employee assessments of dyadic

behaviors to discern if commonalities or divergent perceptions exist. Evaluation of both leader

and Millennials within relationships can help researchers access relational scenarios and terms to

assist with the development of future relational leadership theories.

131

Researchers should evaluate if organizational size influence leader-to-Millennial

relationship development. The small business internal structure provides accessibility of

knowledge from a diversity of sections within the social system. Smaller social systems may

assist with Millennial employee learning (Stam et al., 2014). Millennial perceptions of

insufficiency in professional growth may contribute to the lack of retention within smaller

businesses with limited resources. Large organizations have greater power distance with room

for employee promotion, but lack leadership resources to empower Millennial employees for

organizational advancement. Recommendations for future research should address business size

within effective leader-to-Millennial employee relationship development.

Social Change Implications

The research findings helped with defining three implications for positive social change.

The first is awareness of Millennial perceptions of leader-to-employee relationship development.

Understanding the essence of Millennial experiences provides relational components for

organizational learning and retention, whereas traditional leadership systems embrace

transactional, transformational, and charismatic leadership as key aspects of implementing

organizational change initiatives. Information from participant interviews helped diminish

stereotypes that may influence negative perceptions of millennial within an organizational social

system (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). Researchers contend that Millennial workers are job-

hoppers and lack organizational commitment (Case et al., 2014). Research findings broaden

management knowledge in that reports identified that Millennials are obliged to commit to

leaders who provide opportunities to learn. In other words, Leader-to-Millennial employee

relationships that contain a platform for organizational growth encourage retention.

132

Second, empowerment behaviors permit a deeper understanding of Millennial

expectations within organizations. A magnified Millennial perspective aid in the retention of

young professionals who provide valuable knowledge within today’s hyper-changing work

environment. Leadership empowerment behaviors provide (a) opportunities to learn, (b)

mentoring, (c) a collaborative environment, (d) direct communication, and (e) constructive

criticism. Participants revealed that Millennial social behaviors may also contribute to leaders’

inclination to empower employees. Interview responses indicate that employee willingness to

learn, openness to communicate, and respect for managers role, help build high-quality

relationships. Shared participants’ narratives suggest that Millennial employee’s social

intelligence may positively contribute to relationship quality. Social intelligence is an

individual’s ability to use knowledge and social skills to build authentic relationships (Njoroge &

Yazdanifard, 2014). Subsequently, a quantitative evaluative method is needed to assess if

relationship quality is dependent on Millennial employee social intelligence.

Finally, the findings of this study proffer future researchers to glean and advance

relational leadership styles and theories. Advancement of relational methods of leadership assists

with rapidly changing multigenerational systems. Effective relationship development creates

sustainable work cultures (Jones, 2016). Rapid change is incessant and the norm given

technology, ethnic, environmental, and economic elements that affect organizations (Genovese,

2015; Rodriguez & Rodriguez, 2015; Sarpong, Amstéus, & Amankwah-Amoah, 2015).

Understanding and acknowledging social changes within the relational aspect of leadership

elicits meaningful discussions to introduce innovative professional development resources.

Advanced professional development resources, such as relational leadership education, and

133

Millennial social intelligence training within internship programs, assists with building strong

organizational members to cultivate reciprocal relationships for economic survival.

Conclusion

Multi-generational social exchanges are imperative for the advancement of organizational

systems. Knowledge transferred within social exchanges aid in the continuance and advancement

of societal norms in the midst of rapid change (Genovese, 2015; Sorokin, 1959; Tams, 2013).

The Collaboration of diverse generational perspectives helps meet the societal challenges

(Mannheim, 1952). Mannheim further theorized, if generations cease to build robust

relationships within organizational units, the effects could hinder innovation needed for social

sustainability. Social interactions in the workplace are of particular concern in that it provides

knowledge to meet social and global demands (Cummings et al., 2013; Jones, 2015). Social

interactions also help in the transference of knowledge required for learning and job satisfaction

(Howe & Jackson, 2012).

In current literature, researchers identified a gulf in older generations’ perceptions of

Millennial employees in the workplace that influence effective multigenerational social

exchanges (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012; Lester et al., 2012). Stereotypes and misperceptions have

affected the growth of high-quality relationships needed for organizational learning and retention

of the Millennial employees (Graen & Schiemann, 2013). Although transformational and

charismatic leadership methods are central to implementing organizational change strategies,

researchers provide information to suggest that relational leadership systems aid in the

management of generational diversity in the workplace (Choi et al., 2013; Chou, 2012).

134

The qualitative evaluation of real-life experiences of 20 Millennial employee participants

working with their leader for one year or more explored social exchanges that build effective

leader-to-Millennial relationships needed for positive social change. The information found

broaden research knowledge on organizational social systems that can enable effective

communications strategies that empower and engage employee learning. Millennials feel

obligated towards leaders because of empowering connections established within professional

role development. In current literature, employee obligation aid in performance and increased

retention (Deo, 2014; Ghosh & Gurunathan, 2015). In conclusion, Understanding Millennials’

perceptions of leader-to-employee relationships assist the development of relational

contributions to leadership, to promote increased learning and retention of young professionals

within multigenerational organizations.

135

References

Aarons, G. A., & Sommerfeld, D. H. (2012). Leadership, innovation climate, and attitudes

toward evidence-based practice during a statewide implementation. Journal of the

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(4), 423-431.

doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2012.01.018

Abaffy, L., & Rubin, D. K. (2011). Millennials bring new attitudes. ENR: Engineering News-

Record, 266(6), 22-26. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com Database. (Accession

No. 59406675)

Akhras, C. A. (2015). Millennials: Entitled networking business leaders. International Journal of

Computer Science and Business Informatics, 15(1). Retrieved from

http://ijcsbi.org/index.php/ijcsbi/article/download/496/146

Alfes, K., Shantz, A. D., Truss, C., & Soane, E. C. (2012). The link between perceived human

resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated

mediation model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), 330-

351. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.679950

Al-Jubari, I. (2014). Exploring employee work engagement in academia: A qualitative study.

Journal of Education Research and Behaviorial Science, 3(6), 169-178. Retrieved from

http://www.apexjournal.org/jerbs/archive/2014/Aug/fulltext/Al-Jubari.pdf

Amayah, A. T., & Gedro, J. (2014). Understanding generational diversity: Strategic human

resource management and development across the generational 'divide'. New Horizons in

Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 26(2), 36-48.

doi:10.1002/nha3.20061

136

Anantatmula, V. S., & Shrivastav, B. (2012). Evolution of project teams for Generation Y

workforce. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(1), 9-26.

doi:10.1108/17538371211192874

Agarwal, U. A. (2014). Examining the impact of social exchange relationships on innovative

work behaviour. Team Performance Management, 20(3/4), 102. doi:10.1108/TPM-01-

2013-0004

Arnett, J. J. (2013). The evidence for generation we and against generation me. Emerging

Adulthood, 1(1), 5-10. doi:10.1177/2167696812466842

Arshad, A. S., Goh, C. F., & Rasli, A. (2014). A hierarchical latent variable model of leadership

styles using PLS-SEM. Jurnal Teknologi, 69(6), 79-82. Retrieved from

http://www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my/index.php/jurnalteknologi/article/view/3245

Baker, N. M. (2013). Managerial descriptions of characteristics and communication rule

violations of Millennial employees: Insights into the hospitality industry. (Master’s thesis,

University of Central Florida) Retrieved from

http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0004649/Baker_Nicole_M_201305_MA.pdf

Balda, J. B., & Mora, F. (2011). Adapting leadership theory and practice for the networked,

Millennial generation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 13-24. doi:10.1002/jls.20229

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership:Theory (4th ed.). New York,

NY: Free Press.

Bazely, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

137

Beane-Katner, L. (2014). Anchoring a mentoring network in a new faculty development

program. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(2), 91-103.

doi:10.1080/13611267.2014.902558

Bevan, M. T. (2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative Health Research,

24(1), 136-144. doi:10.1177/1049732313519710

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative

research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234. doi:10.1177/1468794112468475

Berman, S., & Marshall, A. (2014). The next digital transformation: from an individual-centered

to an everyone-to-everyone economy. Strategy & Leadership, 42(5), 9-17. Retrieved

from http://proquest.com Database. (Accession No. 1691011001)

Bernard, H. R., & Bernard, H. R. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bernerth, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Harris, S. G. (2015). Rethinking the benefits and pitfalls of

leader–member exchange: A reciprocity versus self-protection perspective. Human

Relations. doi:10.1177/0018726715594214

Berson, Y., Da'as, R. a., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). How do leaders and their teams bring about

organizational learning and outcomes? Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 79-108.

doi:10.1111/peps.12071

Biao, L., & Shuping, C. (2014). Leader-member exchange, efficacy and job performance: A

cognitive perspective interpretation. Canadian Social Science, 10(5), 244-248.

doi:10.3968/4984

138

Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2012). Approaching leadership with a follower focus. Zeitschrift

für Psychologie, 220(4), 201-204. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000114

Booth, A., Carroll, C., Ilott, I., Low, L. L., & Cooper, K. (2013). Desperately seeking

dissonance: identifying the disconfirming case in qualitative evidence synthesis.

Qualitative Health Research, 23(1), 126-141. doi:10.1177/1049732312466295

Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job

satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The

Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270-283. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.006

Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Terry, G. (2014) Thematic analysis. In: Rohleder, P. and Lyons, A.,

eds. (2014) Qualitative Research in Clinical and Health Psychology. New York, NY:

MacMillan

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily

transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of

Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138-157. doi:10.1111/joop.12041

Bremer, I., Andersson, C., & Carlsson, E. (2013). Effective tacit knowledge transfer: A

leadership perspective: The case of the “Toyota Way” (Bachelor's thesis). Retrieved from

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn+urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-21303

Brocke, J. v., & Lippe, S. (2015). Managing collaborative research projects: A synthesis of

project management literature and directives for future research. International Journal of

Project Management, 33(5), 1022-1039. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.001

Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2013). Leader political skill,

relationship quality, and leadership effectiveness: A two-study model test and

139

constructive replication. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(2), 185-

198. doi:10.1177/1548051812460099

Brown, E. A., Thomas, N. J., & Bosselman, R. H. (2015). Are they leaving or staying: A

qualitative analysis of turnover issues for Generation Y hospitality employees with a

hospitality education. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 130-137.

doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.01.011

Cahill, T. F., & Sedrak, M. (2012). Leading a multigenerational workforce: Strategies for

attracting and retaining Millennials. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 29(1), 3-

15. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com Database. (Accesion No. 184932)

Cain, J., Romanelli, F., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Academic entitlement in pharmacy education.

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), 1-15. doi:10.5688/aipe7610189

Caimo, A., & Lomi, A. (2014). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A Bayesian analysis of the

role of reciprocity and formal structure. Journal of Management, 0(0), 1-27.

doi:10.1177/0149206314552192

Carmeli, A., Dutton, J. E., & Hardin, A. E. (2015). Respect as an engine for new ideas: Linking

respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among

employees and teams. Human Relations, 68(6), 1021-1047.

doi:10.1177/0018726714550256

Carpenter, M. J., & de Charon, L. C. (2014). Mitigating multigenerational conflict and attracting,

motivating, and retaining Millennial employees by changing the organizational culture: A

theoretical model. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 5(3), 68-

84. doi:10.1002/jpoc.21154

140

Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational

leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous

incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 942-958.

doi:10.1002/job.1824

Case, B. A., Guan, Y. M., & Paris, S. (2014). Recruiting and advising challenges in actuarial

science. PRIMUS, 24(9-10), 891-903. doi:10.1080/10511970.2014.921651

Casimir, G., Ngee, K., Ng, Y., Yuan Wang, K., & Ooi, G. (2014). The relationships amongst

leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and

in-role performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(5), 366.

doi:10.1108/LODJ-04-2012-0054

Chan, C., Fung, Y.-l., & Chien, W.-t. (2013). Bracketing in phenomenology: Only undertaken in

the data collection and analysis process. The Qualitative Report, 18(59), 1-9. Retrieved

from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/chan59.pdf

Chaturvedi, S., & Srivastava, A. (2014). An overview of upward influence tactics. Global

Journal of Finance and Management, 6(3), 265-274. Retrieved from

http://www.ripublication.com/gjfm-spl/gjfmv6n3_13.pdf

Chaudhry, A., & Tekleab, A. G. (2013). A social exchange model of psychological contract

fulfillment: Where do promises, expectations, LMX, and POS fit in?. Organization

Management Journal, 10(3), 158-171. doi:10.1080/15416518.2013.831701

Chaudhuri, S., & Ghosh, R. (2012). Reverse mentoring: A social exchange tool for keeping the

boomers engaged and Millennials committed. Human Resource Development Review,

11(1), 55-76. doi:10.1177/1534484311417562

141

Chen, Y.-H., Lin, T.-P., & Yen, D. C. (2014). How to facilitate inter-organizational knowledge

sharing: The impact of trust. Information & Management, 51(5), 568-578.

doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.03.007

Chi, C. G., Maier, T. A., & Gursoy, D. (2013). Employees’ perceptions of younger and older

managers by generation and job category. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 34, 42-50. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.01.009

Chien, M. S., & Lin, C.-C. (2012). Psychological contract framework on the linkage between

developmental human resource configuration and role behavior. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 24(1), 1-14. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.669778

Choi, Y. G., Kwon, J., & Kim, W. (2013). Effects of attitudes vs experience of workplace fun on

employee behaviors: Focused on Generation Y in the hospitality industry. International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(3), 410-427.

doi:10.1108/09596111311311044

Chou, S. Y. (2012). Millennials in the workplace: A conceptual analysis of Millennials'

leadership and followership styles. International Journal of Human Resource Studies,

2(2), 71-83. doi:10.5296/ijhrs.v2i2.1568

Chuang, S.-S., Chen, K.-S., & Tsai, M.-T. (2015). Exploring the antecedents that influence

middle management employees' knowledge-sharing intentions in the context of total

quality management implementations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,

26 (1-2), 108-122. doi:10.1080/14783363.2013.809941

142

Clarke, N., & Mahadi, N. (2015). Mutual recognition respect between leaders and followers: Its

relationship to follower job performance and well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-

16. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2724-z

Cole, B. M. (2015). Lessons from a martial arts dojo: A prolonged process model of high-context

communication. 58(2), 567-591. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0986

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson,

M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social

exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199-236.

doi:10.1037/a0031757

Conway, N., & Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M. (2012). The reciprocal relationship between

psychological contract fulfilment and employee performance and the moderating role of

perceived organizational support and tenure. Journal of Occupational & Organizational

Psychology, 85(2), 277-299. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02033.x

Corgnet, B., Hernán Gonzalez, R., & Mateo, R. (2015). Cognitive reflection and the diligent

worker: An experimental study of Millennials. PLOS ONE, 10(11), 1-13.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141243

Corwin, R. J. (2015). Strategies to Retain Tacit Knowledge From Baby Boomers (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from

http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1459&context=dissertations

Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational

differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 27(4), 375-394. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4

143

Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace:

Is there a there there? Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 308-323.

doi:10.1017/iop.2015.15

Coulter, J. S., & Faulkner, D. C. (2014). The Multigenerational Workforce. Professional case

management, 19(1), 46-51. doi:10.1097/NCM.0000000000000008

Cross, R. L., & Funk, F. (2015). Leveraging intellect in a small business: Designing an

infrastructure to support today's knowledge worker. Journal of Small Business Strategy,

8(1), 15-34. Retrieved from

http://libjournals.mtsu.edu/index.php/jsbs/article/viewFile/356/334

Cummings, G. G., Spiers, J. A., Sharlow, J., Germann, P., Yurtseven, O., & Bhatti, A. (2013).

Worklife improvement and leadership development study: A learning experience in

leadership development and “planned” organizational change. Health Care Management

Review, 38(1), 81-93. doi:10.1097/HMR.0b013e31824589a9

Cummings-White, I., & Diala, I. S. (2013). Knowledge transfer in a municipality study on Baby

Boomer exodus from the workforce. International Journal of Computer Applications

Technology and Research, 2(3), 367-373. Retrieved from

http://www.ijcat.com/archives/volume2/issue3/ijcatr02031029.pdf

Dannar, P. R. (2013). Millennials: What they offer our organizations and how leaders can make

sure they deliver. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 6(1), 1-12. Retrieved from

http://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol6/iss1/3/

Day, D. (2014). The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

144

Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in

leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The


Deal, J. J., Stawiski, S., Graves, L., Gentry, W. A., Weber, T. J., & Ruderman, M. (2013).

Motivation at work: Which matters more, generation or managerial level?. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(1), 1-16. doi:10.1037/a0032693

Debevec, K., Schewe, C. D., Madden, T. J., & Diamond, W. D. (2013). Are today's Millennials

splintering into a new generational cohort? Maybe! Journal of Consumer Behaviour,

12(1), 20-31. doi:10.1002/cb.1400

Deery, M., & Leo, J. (2015). Revisiting talent management, work-life balance and retention

strategiesnull. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(3),

453-472. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-12-2013-0538

DeFranco, A., & Schmidgall, R. S. (2014). Management Practices of Club Financial Executives.

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 13(3), 277-296.

doi:10.1080/15332845.2014.866481

Delgado-Márquez, B. L., Hurtado-Torres, N. E., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2012). The dynamic

nature of trust transfer: Measurement and the influence of reciprocity. Decision Support

Systems, 54(1), 226-234. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.008

Deloitte. (2014). Positive impact: A Millennial survey [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www2.deloitte.com/global/2014-Millennial-survey-positive-impact.html

145

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S.(2011). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In

Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative

research (pp. 1-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Deo, D. (2014). Role of Human Resource Practices on Employee Retention in Institutes of

Higher learning in Delhi-NCR. Review of HRM, 3, 259-275. Retrieved from

http://proquest.com Database. (Accession No. 1655998178)

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A

critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 618-634.

doi:10.5465/AMR.1986.4306242

Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member

exchange. Group & Organization Management, 15(4), 395-413.

doi:10.1177/105960119001500405

Dugan, J. P., Bohle, C. W., Woelker, L. R., & Cooney, M. A. (2014). The role of social

perspective-taking in developing students’ leadership capacities. Journal of Student

Affairs Research and Practice, 51(1), 1-15. doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0001

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-

analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange integrating the past

with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759.

doi:10.1177/0149206311415280

Duncan, P., & Herrera, R. (2014). The relationship between diversity and the multidimensional

measure of leader-member exchange (LMX-MDM). Journal of Management, 15(1), 11.

Retrieved from http://www.na-businesspress.com/JMPP/HerreraR_Web15_1_.pdf

146

Dworkin, S. L. (2012). Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews.

Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 41 (6), 1319-1320. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6

Ehrhart, K. H., Mayer, D. M., & Ziegert, J. C. (2012). Web-based recruitment in the Millennial

generation: Work–life balance, website usability, and organizational attraction. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(6), 850-874.

doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.598652

Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative

content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open, 4(1), 1-10.

doi:10.1177/2158244014522633

Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2013). Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on

authentic leadership and organizational deviance. Management Research Review, 36(9),

828-848. doi:10.1108/MRR-06-2012-0136

Ertas, N. (2015). Turnover intentions and work motivations of Millennial employees in federal

service. Public Personnel Management, 44(3), 401-423. doi:10.1177/0091026015588193

Ertürk, A., & Vurgun, L. (2015). Retention of IT professionals: Examining the influence of

empowerment, social exchange, and trust. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 34-46.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.05.010

Espinoza, C., & Schwarzbart, J. (2015). Millennials Who Manage: How to Overcome Workplace

Perceptions and Become a Great Leader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.

Eversole, B. A. W., Venneberg, D. L., & Crowder, C. L. (2012). Creating a flexible

organizational culture to attract and retain talented workers across generations. Advances

in Developing Human Resources, 14(4), 607-625. doi:10.1177/1523422312455612

147

Farr-Wharton, R., Brunetto, Y., & Shacklock, K. (2012). The impact of intuition and supervisor-

nurse relationships on empowerment and affective commitment by generation. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 68(6), 1391-1401. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05852.x

Farrell, L., & Hurt, A. C. (2014). Training the Millennial generation: Implications for

organizational climate. E Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 12(1), 47-

60. Retrieved from http://www.leadintoday.org/weleadinlearning/spri

ng2014/Spring_2014_Farrell.pdf

Fenzel, J. L. (2013). Examining generational differences in the workplace: Work centrality,

narcissism, and their relation to employee work engagement (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). University of Wisconsin, WI. Retrieved from http://dc.uwm.edu

Festing, M., & Schäfer, L. (2014). Generational challenges to talent management: A framework

for talent retention based on the psychological-contract perspective. Journal of World

Business, 49(2), 262-271. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.010

Findlay, I., & Kowbel, J. (2013). Engaging an age-diverse workplace: Revisiting a business

opportunity and challenge. J Bus & Fin Aff, 2(2), 1-2. doi:10.417/2167-0234.100e127

Fisher, K., & Robbins, C. R. (2014). Embodied leadership: Moving from leader competencies to

leaderful practices. Leadership, 0(0), 1-19. doi:10.1177/1742715014522680

Fisk, G. M., & Friesen, J. P. (2012). Perceptions of leader emotion regulation and LMX as

predictors of followers' job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. The

Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 1-12. doi:http:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.001

Flink, C. M. (2015). Multidimensional conflict and organizational performance. The American

Review of Public Administration, 45(2), 182-200. doi:10.1177/0275074013490825

148

Fowler, P., & Wilford, B. (2016). Formative feedback in the clinical practice setting: What are

the perceptions of student radiographers? Radiography, 22(1), e16-e24.

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2015.03.005

Freeman, M., DeMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., St.Pierre, E.A.(2007). Standards of

evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher,

36(1), 25-32. doi:10.3102/0013189X063298009

Furunes, T., Mykletun, R. J., Einarsen, S., & Glasø, L. (2015). Do Low-quality Leader-Member

Relationships Matter for Subordinates? Evidence from Three Samples on the Validity of

the Norwegian LMX Scale. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 5(2), 71-87.

Retrieved from http://proquest.com Database. (Accession No. 1697014974)

Gallicano, T. D. (2013). Relationship management with the Millennial generation of public

relations agency employees. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 222-225.

doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.03.001

Gallicano, T. D., Curtin, P., & Matthews, K. (2012). I love what I do, but . . . : A relationship

management survey of Millennial generation public relations agency employees. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 24(3), 222-242. doi:10.1080/1062726x.2012.671986

Gagnon, S., Vough, H. C., & Nickerson, R. (2012). Learning to lead, unscripted: Developing

afiliative leadership through improvisational theatre. Human Resource Development

Review, 11(3), 299-325. doi:10.1177/1534484312440566

Genovese, M. A. (2015). The Future of Leadership: Leveraging Influence in an Age of Hyper-

Change. New York, NY: Routledge.

149

Gerhardt, M. W. (2014). The importance of being … social? Instructor credibility and the

Millennials. Studies in Higher Education, 1-15. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.981516

Ghosh, R. (2014). Antecedents of mentoring support: a meta-analysis of individual, relational,

and structural or organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(3), 367-384.

doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.009

Ghosh, D., & Gurunathan, L. (2015). Do commitment based human resource practices influence

job embeddedness and intention to quit? IIMB Management Review, 27(4), 240-251.

doi:10.1016/j.iimb.2015.09.003

Gibson, L. A., & Sodeman, W. A. (2014). Millennials and Technology: Addressing the

Communication Gap in Education and Practice. Organization Development Journal,

32(4), 63-75. Retrieved from http://ebscohost.com Database. (Accession No. 99338580)

Gilbert, J. (2011). The Millennials: A new generation of employees, a new set of engagement

policies. Ivey Business Journal, 75(5), 26-28. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Database. (Accession No. 66293927)

Gilley, A., Waddell, K., Hall, A., Jackson, S. A., & Gilley, J. W. (2015). Manager Behavior,

Generation, and Influence on Work-Life Balance: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of

Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 3-23. Retrieved from

http://proquest.com Database. (Accession No. 1667363063)

Gkorezis, P. (2015). Supervisor support and pro-environmental behavior: the mediating role of

LMX. Management Decision, 53(5), 1045-1060. doi:10.1108/MD-06-2014-0370

150

Gkorezis, P., Bellou, V., & Skemperis, N. (2015). Nonverbal communication and relational

identification with the supervisor: Evidence from two countries. Management Decision,

53(5), 1005-1022. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2014-0630

Gooty, J., Serban, A., Thomas, J. S., Gavin, M. B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2012). Use and misuse

of levels of analysis in leadership research: An illustrative review of leader–member

exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1080-1103.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.002

Graen, G. (2003). Dealing with diversity (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations:

A developmental approach. In James Hunt and Lars Larson, Leadership Frontiers (pp.

54-62). Kent, Ohio: Kent University Press

Graen, G., & Grace, M. (2015). New talent strategy: Attract, process, educate, empower, engage

and retain the best. [White paper]. Retrieved from

http://www.shrm.org/Research/Documents/SHRM-

SIOP%20New%20Talent%20Strategy.pdf

Graen, G., & Schiemann, W. (2013). Leadership-motivated excellence theory: An extension of

LMX. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(5), 2-2. doi:10.1108/JMP-11-2012-0351

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

151

Grandia, J. (2015). The role of change agents in sustainable public procurement projects. Public

Money & Management, 35(2), 119-126. doi:10.1080/09540962.2015.1007706

Graybill, J. O. (2014). Millennials among the professional workforce in academic libraries: Their

perspective on leadership. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1), 10-15.

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.09.006

Gürkan, G. Ç., & Aktaş, H. (2014). The mediating role of workload on the relationship between

leader member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction. Canadian Social Science, 10(1),

41-48. doi:10.3968/j.css.1923669720141001.4141

Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G.-Q., & Karadag, E. (2013). Generational differences in work values and

attitudes among frontline and service contact employees. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 32(0), 40-48. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.002

Hadar, G. (2013). Transferring institutional knowledge to Millennials. The Public Manager.

Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/Publications/Magazines/The-Public-

Manager/Archives/2013/Fall/Transferring-Institutional-Knowledge-to-Millennials

Haeger, D. L., & Lingham, T. (2013). Intergenerational collisions and leadership in the 21st

century. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11(3), 286-303.

doi:10.1080/15350770.2013.810525

Haga, W. J., Graen, G., & Dansereu, F. (1974). Professionalism and role making in a service

organization: A longitudinal investigation. American Sociological Review, 39(1), 122-

133. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094281

152

Hagel, J. (2014). Meeting the challenge of the young and the restless. Journal of Accountancy,

217(5), 20-25. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-

367419471/meeting-the-challenge-of-the-young-and-the-restless

Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional

Leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 5-

17. doi:10.1177/1548051809350894

Harper, M., & Cole, P. (2012). Member checking: Can benefits be gained similar to group

therapy?. The Qualitative Report, 17(2), 510-517. Retrieved from

http//www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17-2/harper.pdf

Harris, T. B., Li, N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). Leader–member exchange (LMX) in context:

How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX's influence on

OCB and turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 314-328.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.001

Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y.-G. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and

social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions.

International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356-366.

doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009

Hays, D. W. (2014). Examining differences between Millennial and all employee levels of job

satisfaction and importance and satisfaction with the immediate supervisor relationship.

International Journal of Management Studies and Research, 2(8), 1-7. Retrieved from

http://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijmsr/v2-i8/1.pdf

153

Helyer, R., & Lee, D. (2012). The twenty-first century multiple generation workforce: Overlaps

and differences but also challenges and benefits. Education+ Training, 54(7), 565-578.

doi:10.1108/00400911211265611

Hendricks, J. M., & Cope, V. C. (2013). Generational diversity: What nurse managers need to

know. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(3), 717-725. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2648.2012.06079.x

Heng, C. Y., & Yazdanifard, R. (2013). Generation gap; Is there any solid solution? From

Human relation point of view. Retrieved from

http://waprogramming.com/papers/526c80e09457e7.39457918.pdf

Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and

management perspective. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(2), 211-223.

doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9160-y

Higo, M., & Khan, H. T. (2015). Global population aging: Unequal distribution of risks in later

life between developed and developing countries. Global Social Policy, 15(2), 146-166.

doi:10.1177/1468018114543157

Hillman, D. R. (2014). Understanding multigenerational work-value conflict resolution. Journal

of Workplace Behavioral Health, 29(3), 240-257. doi:10.1080/15555240.2014.933961

Hines, A., & Carbone, C. (2013). The future of knowledge work. Employment Relations Today

(Wiley), 40(1), 1-17. doi:10.1002/ert.21394

Hinojosa, A. S., Davis-McCauley, K., Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Leader and

follower attachment styles: Implications for authentic leader–follower relationships. The

Leadership Quarterly. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.002

154

Hite, D. M., Daspit, J. J., & Dong, X. (2015). Examining the influence of transculturation on

work ethic in the United States. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,

22(1), 145-162. doi:10.1108/CCM-12-2013-0190

Hocine, Z., & Zhang, J. (2014). Autonomy support: Explaining the path from leadership to

employee creative performance. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6). 417-412.

doi:10.4236/jss.2014.26048

Holt, S., Marques, J., & Way, D. (2012). Bracing for the Millennial workforce: Looking for ways

to inspire Generation Y. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 9(6), 81-93.

Retrieved from http://t.www.na-businesspress.com/JLAE/MarquesJ_Web9_6_.pdf

Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigor in qualitative case-study

research. Nurse Researcher, 20(4), 12-17. Retrieved from http://ebscohost.com Database.

(Accession No. 2012024327)

Howe, N., & Jackson, R. (2012). Global aging and the crisis of the 2020s. Center for Strategic

and International Studies. 2(1) 20-25. Retrieved from

http://csis.org/files/publication/110104_gai_jackson.pdf

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2009). Millennials rising: The next great generation: New York, NY:

Vintage.

Hu, J. I. A., & Liden, R. C. (2013). Relative leader-member exchange within team contexts: How

and when social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology,

66(1), 127-172. doi:10.1111/peps.12008

155

Humborstad, S. I. W., & Kuvaas, B. (2013). Mutuality in leader–subordinate empowerment

expectation: Its impact on role ambiguity and intrinsic motivation. The Leadership

Quarterly, 24(2), 363-377. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.003

Husserl, E. (2002). Edmund Husserl: Founder of Phenomenology. In Dermont Moran and

Timothy Mooney (Eds.), The Phenomenology Reader (pp. 59-174). London and New

York: Routledge.

Huvila, I., Ek, S., & Widén, G. (2014). Information sharing and the dimensions of social capital

in second life. Journal of Information Science, 40(2), 237-248.

doi:10.1177/0165551513516711

Imran, A., & Fatima, J. (2013). Surbordinate's perception of LMX and performance proxies.

Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 18(6), 796-802.

doi:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.18.6.11761

Jackson, E. M., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). When opposites do (and do not) attract: Interplay of

leader and follower self-identities and its consequences for leader–member exchange.

The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 488-501. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.003

Jaiswal, D., & Srivastava, A. P. (2015). Impact of High Performance Work Practices on Service

Innovative Behavior in the Hotel Industry. Paper presented at the Proceedings of ICRBS,

Uttarakhand, India. Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anugamini_Srivastava/publication/286156020_Imp

act_of_High_Performance_Work_Practices_on_Service_Innovative_Behavior_in_the_H

otel_Industry/links/56667bc908ae192bbf928309.pdf

156

Jang, H. S., & Maghelal, P. (2015). Exploring Millennial generation in task values and sector

choice: A case of employment in planning. International Journal of Public

Administration, 1-11. doi:10.1080/01900692.2014.1003385

Jian, G., & Dalisay, F. (2015). Conversation at work: The effects of leader-member

conversational quality. Communication Research, 42(8), 1-21.

doi:10.1177/0093650214565924

Jiang, J. Y., & Liu, C.-W. (2015). High performance work systems and organizational

effectiveness: The mediating role of social capital. Human Resource Management

Review, 25(1), 126-137. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.09.001

Johnson, E. A. (2014). Leadership dual behaviour and workers’ performance: A people-task

orientation model. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 3(4),

184-191. Retrieved from

http://ojms.cloudapp.net/index.php/ijird/article/viewFile/48046/38784

Johnston, M. P. (2013). The importance of professional organizations and mentoring in enabling

leadership. Knowledge Quest, 41(4), 34-39. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com


Jokisaari, M. (2013). The role of leader–member and social network relations in newcomers' role

performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(2), 96-104.

doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.002

Jones, S. L., & Shah, P. P. (2015). Diagnosing the locus of trust: A temporal perspective for

trustor, trustee, and dyadic influences on perceived trustworthiness. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 16(1), 1-45. doi:10.1037/apl0000041

157

Jonsen, K., Tatli, A., Özbilgin, M. F., & Bell, M. P. (2013). The tragedy of the uncommons:

Reframing workforce diversity. Human Relations, 66(2), 271-294.

doi:10.1177/0018726712466575

Jorgensen, B. (2003). Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y: Policy implications for

defense forces in the modern era. foresight, 5(4), 41-49.

doi:10.1108/14636680310494753

Kaifi, B. A., Nafei, W. A., Khanfar, N. M., & Kaifi, M. M. (2012). A multi-generational

workforce: Managing and understanding Millennials. International Journal of Business

& Management, 7(24), 88-93. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n24p88

Kauppila, O. (2015). When and how does LMX differentiation influence followers’ work

outcomes? The interactive roles of one's own LMX status and organizational context.

Personnel Psychology, 68(4), 1-37. doi:10.1111/peps.12110

Karanges, E., Johnston, K., Beatson, A., & Lings, I. (2015). The influence of internal

communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(1),

129-131. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.003

Karatepe, O. M. (2013). High‐performance work practices, work social support and their effects

on job embeddedness and turnover intentions. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 25(6), 903-921. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-06-2012-0097

Kassing, J. W., & Kava, W. (2013). Assessing disagreement expressed to management:

Development of the upward dissent scale. Communication Research Reports, 30(1), 46-

56. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.746225

158

Kaur, S. (2013). Leadership styles in managing people. Leadership, 2(2), 101-105. Retrieved

from http://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijmsr/v2-i8/1.pdf

Keeter, S., & Taylor, P. (2010). The Millennials: A portrait of generation next. confident

connected. open to change (Research Report No. 18Feb10). Retrieved from Pew

Research Center. website: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/Millennials-

confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf

Kelan, E. K. (2014). Organizing generations - What can sociology offer to the understanding of

generations at work? Sociology Compass, 8(1), 20-30. doi:10.1111/soc4.12117

Kelley, K. M., & Bisel, R. S. (2014). Leaders' narrative sensemaking during LMX role

negotiations: Explaining how leaders make sense of who to trust and when. The


Kemmelmeier, M., & Kühnen, U. (2012). Culture as process: The dynamics of cultural stability

and change. Social Psychology, 43(4), 171-173. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000117

Kempster, S., & Parry, K. (2014). Exploring observational learning in leadership development

for managers. Journal of Management Development, 33(3), 164-181. doi:10.1108/JMD-

01-2012-0016

Kim, S. Y., & Fernandez, S. (2015). Employee empowerment and turnover intention in the U.S.

Federal Bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration.

doi:10.1177/0275074015583712

Kim, M., Knutson, B. J., & Choi, L. (2015). The effects of employee voice and delight on job

satisfaction and behaviors: Comparison between employee generations. Journal of

Hospitality Marketing & Management, 1-26. doi:10.1080/19368623.2015.1067665

159

Kim, C., & Schachter, H. L. (2015). Exploring followership in a public setting: Is it a missing

link between participative leadership and organizational performance? The American

Review of Public Administration, 45(4), 436-457. doi:10.1177/0275074013508219

Kim, J., & Yang, Y.-C. (2013). What can we do to attract and retain young people to our

company as we find it difficult to attract employees at all levels? The ILR Collections at

Digital Commons, 0(0). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/student/40/

Klenke, K. (2008). Qualitative research in the study of leadership. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Kodatt, S. (2009). I understand "You": Leadership preferences within the different generations.

Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance,

61-65. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com Database. (Accession No. 48918397)

Komives, S. R., & Wagner, W. (2012). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social

change model of leadership development: New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Kossek, E. E., Thompson, R. J., & Lautsch, B. A. (2015). Balanced workplace flexibility:

avoiding the traps. California Management Review, 57(4), 5-25.

doi:10.1525/cmr.2015.57.4.5

Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials' (Lack of) attitude problem: An

empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business &

Psychology, 25(2), 265-279. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9171-8

Kuhl, J. S. (2014). Investing in Millennials for the future of your organization. Leader to Leader,

2014(71), 25-30. doi:10.1002/ltl.20110

Kulik, C. T., Ryan, S., Harper, S., & George, G. (2014). Aging populations and management.

Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 929-935. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.4004

160

Kultalahti, S., & Viitala, R. (2015). Generation Y – challenging clients for HRM? Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 101-114. doi:10.1108/JMP-08-2014-0230

Küpers, W. M. (2013). Embodied inter-practices of leadership – phenomenological perspectives

on relational and responsive leading and following. Leadership, 9(3), 335-357.

doi:10.1177/1742715013485852

Kupritz, V. W., & Cowell, E. (2011). Productive management communication. Journal of

Business Communication, 48(1), 54-82. doi:10.1177/0021943610385656

Kuron, L. K. J., Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., & Ng, E. S. W. (2015). Millennials’ work values:

differences across the school to work transition. Personnel Review, 44(6), 991-1009.

doi:10.1108/PR-01-2014-0024

Kuyken, K. (2012). Knowledge communities: Towards a re-thinking of intergenerational

knowledge transfer. Vine, 42(3/4), 365-381. doi:10.1108/03055721211267495

Kwak, W. J. (2012). Charismatic leadership influence on empowered and less empowered

followers' voice: A mediated moderation model. Journal of Leadership, Accountability &

Ethics, 9(1), 56-70. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com Database. (Accession No.

76117996)

Lam, L. W., Peng, K. Z., Wong, C.-S., & Lau, D. C. (2015). Is more feedback seeking always

better? Leader-member exchange moderates the relationship between feedback-seeking

behavior and performance. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206315581661

Lam, C. K., Xu, H., & Chan, S. C. H. (2015). The thresold effect of participative leadership and

the role of leader information sharing. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 836-855.

doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0427

161

Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual versus perceived

generational differences at work: An empirical examination. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341-354. doi:10.1177/1548051812442747

Leveson, L. C., & Joiner, T. (2014). Exploring corporate social responsibility values of millenial

job seeking students. Education+ Training, 56(1), 3-3. doi:10.1108/ET-11-2012-0121

Li, G., Shang, Y., Liu, H., & Xi, Y. (2014). Differentiated transformational leadership and

knowledge sharing: A cross-level investigation. European Management Journal, 32(4),

554-563. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.10.004

Li, Y., Wei, F., Ren, S., & Di, Y. (2015). Locus of control, psychological empowerment and

intrinsic motivation in relation to performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30

(4), 422-438. doi:10.1108/JMP-10-2012-0318

Liang-Chieh, W., & Wen-Ching, C. (2015). Does impression management really help? A

multilevel testing of the mediation role of impression management between personality

traits and leader-member exchange. Asia Pacific Management Review, 20(1), 2-10.

doi:10.1016/j.apmrv.2013.03.001

Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006).

Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive

systems. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(4), 2-12. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com Database. (Accession No. 24083897)

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of

leadership. Academy of Management Journal (pre-1986), 23(3), 451. doi:10.2307/255511

162

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development

of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662-674.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662

Lincoln, Y.S., & Gruba, E. A. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry (1st Ed). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

Liu, X.-P., & Wang, Z.-M. (2013). Perceived risk and organizational commitment: The

moderating role of organizational trust. Social Behavior & Personality: an international

journal, 41(2), 229-240. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.2.229

Loi, R., Chan, K. W., & Lam, L. W. (2014). Leader–member exchange, organizational

identification, and job satisfaction: A social identity perspective. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 42-61. doi:10.1111/joop.12028

Lopez, K. A., & Willis, D. G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their

contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726-735.

doi:10.1177/1049732304263638

Lub, X. D., Bal, P. M., Blomme, R. J., & Schalk, R. (2015). One job, one deal…or not: do

generations respond differently to psychological contract fulfillment? The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-28. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1035304

Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the

evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35,

S139-S157. doi:10.1002/job.1913

163

Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., & Ng, E. S. W. (2015). How have careers changed? An

investigation of changing career patterns across four generations. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 30(1), 8-21. doi:10.1108/JMP-07-2014-0210

Lyons, S., Urick, M., Kuron, L., & Schweitzer, L. (2015). Generational differences in the

workplace: There is complexity beyond the stereotypes. Industrial & Organizational

Psychology, 8(3), 346-356. doi:10.1017/iop.2015.48

Madlock, P. E., & Chory, R. M. (2013). Socialization as a predictor of employee outcomes.

Communication Studies, 65(1), 56-71. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.811429

Madrid, H. P., & Patterson, M. G. (2015). Creativity at work as a joint function between

openness to experience, need for cognition and organizational fairness. Learning and

Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.010

Maier, T., Tavanti, M., Bombard, P., Gentile, M., & Bradford, B. (2015). Millennial generation

perceptions of value-centered leadership principles. Journal of Human Resources in

Hospitality & Tourism, 14(4), 382-397. doi:10.1080/15332845.2015.1008386

Malik, S., & Khera, S. N. (2014). New generation–great expectations: Exploring the work

attributes of Gen Y. Global Journal of Finance and Management, 6(5), 433-438.

Retrieved from http://www.ripublication.com/gjfm-spl/gjfmv6n5_08.pdf

Manen, M. V. (2014). The phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in

phenomenological research and writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.), From Karl Mannheim

(2nd ed.). London: Transaction Publishing.

164

Marcinkus, W.M. (2012). Reverse mentoring at work: Fostering cross-generational learning and

developing Millennial leaders. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 549-573.

doi:10.1002/hrm.21489

Martin, D., & Bok, S. (2015). Social dominance orientation and mentorship. Personnel Review,

44(4), 592-610. doi:10.1108/PR-08-2013-0141

Martin, J., & Gentry, W.A. (2011). Derailment signs across generations: More in common than

expected. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 14(1), 177-195.

doi:10.1080/10887156.2011.595973

Mason, Mark (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 11(3), 1-25. Retrieved from http://nbn-

resolving.de/urn:nbn:de0114-fqs100387.

Mazur, K. (2012). Leader-member exchange and individual performance. The meta-analysis

Management, 16(2), 40-53. doi:10.2478/v10286-012-0054-0.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Applied social research methods series (3rd ed. Vol. 41). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Maxwell, G. A., & Broadbridge, A. (2014). Generation Y graduates and career transition:

Perspectives by gender. European Management Journal, 32(4), 547-553.

doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.002

McGinnis-Johnson, J., & Ng, E. S. (2015). Money talks or Millennials walk: The effect of

compensation on nonprofit Millennial workers sector-switchingiIntentions. Review of

Public Personnel Administration, 1, 1-23. doi:10.1177/0734371x15587980

165

McMillan, A., Chen, H., Richard, O. C., & Bhuian, S. N. (2012). A mediation model of task

conflict in vertical dyads: Linking organizational culture, subordinate values, and

subordinate outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(3), 307-332.

doi:10.1108/10444061211248994

Mead, N. L., & Maner, J. K. (2012). On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek

proximity to ingroup power threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

102(3), 576-591. doi:10.1037/a0025755

Mencl, J., & Lester, S. W. (2014). More alike than different: What generations value and how

the values affect employee workplace perceptions. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies. 21(3), 257-272. doi:10.1177/1548051814529825

Merat, A., & Bo, D. (2013). Strategic analysis of knowledge firms: The links between

knowledge management and leadership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 3-15.

doi:10.1108/13673271311300697

Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2013). Leadership for sustainability: An evolution of leadership ability.

Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 369-384. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1278-6

Michael, D. F. (2014). The impact of leader-member exchange, supportive supervisor

communication, affective commitment, and role ambiguity on bank Employees’ turnover

intentions and performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(7),

8-21. Retrieved from http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_7_June_2014/2.pdf

166

Michel, J. W., & Tews, M. J. (2016). Does leader–member exchange accentuate the relationship

between leader behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors? Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(1), 13-26. doi:10.1177/1548051815606429

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A Methods

sourcebook (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miller, D. S., & Slocombe, T. E. (2012). Preparing students for the new reality. College Student

Journal, 46(1), 18-25. Retrieved from http://ebscohost.com Database. (Accession No.

73952012)

Mishra, K., Boynton, L., & Mishra, A. (2014). Driving employee engagement: The expanded

role of internal communications. International Journal of Business Communication,

51(2), 183-202. doi:10.1177/2329488414525399

Mohd Soieb, A.Z., Othman, J., & D'Silva, J.L.(2013). The effects of perceived leadership styles

and organizational citizenship behaviour on employee engagement: The mediating role of

conflict management. International Journal of Business & Management, 8(8), 91-99.

doi:10.5539/ijbm.v8n8p91

Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry.

Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212-1222. doi:10.1177/1049732315588501

Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

167

Much, K., Wagener, A. M., Breitkreutz, H. L., & Hellenbrand, M. (2014). Working with the

Millennial generation: Challenges facing 21st-century students from the perspective of

university staff. Journal of College Counseling, 17(1), 37-47. doi:10.1002/j.2161-

1882.2014.00046.x

Munn, Z., Porritt, K., Lockwood, C., Aromataris, E., & Pearson, A. (2014). Establishing

confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC

Medical Research Methodology, 14, 108. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-108

Murray, A. (2011). Mind the gap: Technology, Millennial leadership and the cross-generational

workforce. The Australian Library Journal, 60(1), 54-65.

doi:10.1080/00049670.2011.10722556

Myers, K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective

on Millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business &

Psychology, 25(2), 225-238. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7

Ng, E., Lyons, S., & Schweitzer, L. (2012). Managing the new workforce: International

perspectives on the Millennial generation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Butts, M. M. (2013). Psychological contract breaches and

employee voice behaviour: The moderating effects of changes in social relationships.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 537-553.

doi:10.1080/1359432X.2013.766394

Njoroge, N., & Yazdanifard, R. C. (2014). The impact of social and emotional intelligence on

employee motivation in a multigenerational workplace. Global Journal of Management

168

And Business Research, 14(3). Retrieved from

http://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/viewFile/1255/1165

North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2015). Intergenerational resource tensions in the workplace and

beyond: Individual, interpersonal, institutional, international. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 35(1), 159-179. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2015.10.003

Nouri, M., Pourghaz, A. W., & Jenaabadi, H. (2015). SocialiIntelligence and its relationship with

school administrators’ knowledge absorption capability. Mediterranean Journal of Social

Sciences, 6(6), 333-342. doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6s6p333

O'Donnell, M., Yukl, G., & Taber, T. (2012). Leader behavior and LMX: A constructive

replication. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 143-154.

doi:10.1108/02683941211199545

O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & Doerr, B. (2014). The promise and problems

of organizational culture: CEO personality, culture, and firm performance. Group &

Organization Management, 39(6), 595-625. doi:10.1177/1059601114550713

O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: A critical exploration of the

notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190-

197. doi:10.1177/1468794112446106

Ogbeide, G.-C., Fenich, G. G., Scott-Halsell, S., & Kesterson, K. (2013). Communication

preferences for attracting the Millennial generation to attend meetings and events.

Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 14(4), 331-344.

doi:10.1080/15470148.2013.843480

169

Olsson, L., Hemlin, S., & Pousette, A. (2012). A multi-level analysis of leader–member

exchange and creative performance in research groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3),

604-619. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.011

Osman, M. N. H., & Nahar, H. S. (2015). Understanding and assessing governance agents’

relationships: The contribution of leader-member exchange theory. Procedia Economics

and Finance, 31(2015), 746-758. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01164-8

Ossenkop, C., Vinkenburg, C. J., Jansen, P. G. W., & Ghorashi, H. (2015). Ethnic diversity and

social capital in upward mobility systems: Problematizing the permeability of intra-

organizational career boundaries. Career Development International, 20(5), 539-558.

doi:10.1108/CDI-12-2013-0148

Ozcelik, G. (2015). Engagement and Retention of the Millennial Generation in the Workplace

through Internal Branding. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3),

99-108. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v10n3p99

Palfrey, J. G., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital

natives. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Pan, W., Dong, W., Cebrian, M., Kim, T., Fowler, J. H., & Pentland, A. (2012). Modeling

dynamical influence in human interaction: Using data to make better inferences about

influence within social systems. Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE, 29(2), 77-86.

Retrieved from http://web.media.mit.edu/~panwei/pub/sp.pdf

Park, C. H., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Kim, J. W. (2014). The influences of openness to change,

knowledge sharing intention and knowledge creation practice on employees’ creativity in

170

the Korean public sector context. Human Resource Development International, 17(2),

203-221. doi:10.1080/13678868.2013.876256

Park, C., Vertinsky, I., & Becerra, M. (2015). Transfers of tacit vs. explicit knowledge and

performance in international joint ventures: The role of age. International Business

Review, 24(1), 89-101. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.06.004

Park, J., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Generation effects on work engagement among U.S. hotel

employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1195-1202.

doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.007

Parker, S.K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health,

ambidexterity, and more. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 661-691.

doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208

Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and

evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79-96.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications

Pavett, C. (2012). U.S. cross-generational variations in culturally-oriented value systems.

American Journal of Management, 12(1), 57-68. Retrieved from http://proquest.com


Payton, F. C. (2015). Workplace Design: The Millennials are not coming—They're here. Design

Management Review, 26(1), 54-63. Retrieved from

171

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~fcpayton/Research%20Pubs%20for%20Site/Fay%20DMI%2020

15%20.pdf

Peredaryenko, M. S., & Krauss, S. E. (2013). Calibrating the human instrument: understanding

the interviewing experience of novice qualitative researchers. The Qualitative Report, 18

(85), 1-17. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/peredaryenko85.pdf

Petroulas, E., Brown, D., & Sundin, H. (2010). Generational characteristics and their impact on

preference for management control systems. Australian Accounting Review, 20(3), 221-

240. doi:10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00099.x

Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal

and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 990-1001.

Retrieved from http://ebscohost.com Database. (Accession No. 9412190178)

Pizzolato, J. E., & Hicklen, S. (2011). Parent involvement: Investigating the parent-child

relationship in Millennial college students. Journal of College Student Development,

52(6), 671-686. doi:10.1353/csd.2011.0081

Pobst, G. F. (2014). Meeting the challenge of knowledge worker shortages with strategic talent

management. American Journal of Management, 14(1-2), 1-2. Retrieved from

http://www.na-businesspress.com/AJM/PobstGF_Web14_1-2_.pdf

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths

and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(11), 1451-1458.

doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004

Ponterotto, J. G. (2014). Best practices in psychobiographical research. Qualitative Psychology,

1 (1), 77-90. doi:10.1037/qup0000005

172

Pulakos, E. D., Hanson, R. M., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be

fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change.

Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 51-76. doi:10.1017/iop.2014.2

Pressley, M. M., & Kennett-Hensel, P. A. (2013). Succeeding in the corporate arena: The

evolution of college students’ perceptions of the necessary ethical orientation. Journal of

Education for Business, 88(4), 223-229. doi:10.1080/08832323.2012.683462

Rahim, M. A. (2014). A structural equations model of leaders' social intelligence and creative

performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(1), 44-56.

doi:10.1111/caim.12045

Rana, G., & Goel, A. (2014). Ethan learns to be a learning organization. Human Resource

Management International Digest, 22(6), 12-14. doi:10.1108/HRMID-08-2014-0114

Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Bordia, P., Bordia, S., & Chapman, G. J. (2015). If you

wrong us, shall we not revenge? Moderating roles of self-control and perceived

aggressive work culture in predicting responses to psychological contract breach. Journal

of Management, 41(4), 1132-1154. doi:10.1177/0149206312443557

Richards, D. A., & Hackett, R. D. (2012). Attachment and emotion regulation: Compensatory

interactions and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 686-701.

doi:10.1016/j/leaqua.012.03.005

Rodriguez, A., & Rodriguez, Y. (2015). Metaphors for today’s leadership: VUCA world,

millennial and “Cloud Leaders”. Journal of Management Development, 34(7), 854-866.

doi:10.1108/JMD-09-2013-0110

173

Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to

engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family &

Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44-49. Retrieved from

http://www.gaylajettshannon.com/uploads/2/4/6/7/24670334/engaging_millennials_jcsa.

pdf

Roodin, P., & Mendelson, M. (2013). Multiple generations at work: Current and future trends.

Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11(3), 213-222. doi:10.1080/153

50770.2013.810496

Ryan, S., & O’Connor, R. V. (2013). Acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge in software

development teams: An empirical study. Information and Software Technology, 55(9),

1614-1624. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.02.013

Sabri, S. M., Haron, H., Jamil, N., & Ibrahim, E. N. M. (2014). A conceptual review on

technological intergenerational knowledge transfer. Journal of Computers, 9(3), 654-667.

doi:10.4304/jcp.9.3.654-667

Sætren, G. B., & Laumann, K. (2015). Effects of trust in high-risk organizations during

technological changes. Cognition, Technology & Work, 17(1), 131-144.

doi:10.1007/s10111-014-0313-z

Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Salim, I. M., & Sulaiman, M. (2011). Organizational learning, innovation and performance: A

study of Malaysian small and medium sized enterprises. International Journal of

Business & Management, 6(12), 118-125. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n12p118

174

Samadi, B., Wei, C. C., Seyfee, S., & Yusoff, W. F. W. (2015). Conceptual model of

organizational trust and knowledge sharing behavior among multigenerational

employees. Asian Social Science, 11(9), p32. doi:10.5539/ass.v11n9p32

Sanfey, H., Hollands, C., & Gantt, N. L. (2013). Strategies for building an effective mentoring

relationship. The American Journal of Surgery, 206(5), 714-718.

doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.08.001

Sarpong, D., Amstéus, M. N., & Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2015). Cultivation and management of

strategic foresight in contexts of rapid change, greater complexity, and genuine

uncertainties. foresight, 17(5), 613-625. doi:10.1108/FS-05-2015-0027

Saunders, L., & Tiwari, D. (2014). Employee engagement and disengagement: causes and

benefits. The International Journal of Business & Management, 2(5), 44-52. Retrieved

from http://theijbm.com/may2014/5.BM1405-009.pdf

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange

status on the effects of a leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428-436.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428

Scarlett, L. (2013). Collaborative adaptive management: challenges and opportunities. Ecology

and Society, 18(3), 26-36. doi:10.5751/ES-05762-180326

Schawbel, D. (2013, August 6). Millennial branding and beyond.com survey reveals the rising

costs of hiring workers from the Millennial generation. [Web blog post]. Retrieved from

http://Millennialbranding.com/2013/08/cost-Millennial-retention-study/

175

Schilke, O., & Cook, K. S. (2013). A cross-level process theory of trust development in

interorganizational relationships. Strategic Organization, 0(0), 1-23.

doi:10.1177/1476127012472096

Schullery, N. M. (2013). Workplace engagement and generational differences in values. Business

Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 252-265. doi:10.1177/1080569913476543

Schyns, B., Tymon, A., Kiefer, T., & Kerschreiter, R. (2013). New ways to leadership

development: A picture paints a thousand words. Management Learning, 44(1), 11-24.

doi:10.1177/1350507612456499

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative researcher (4th

ed). New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. (2013). The role of employee engagement in the

relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant

behaviours. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(13), 2608-

2627. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.744334

Sheer, V. C. (2014). ‘‘Exchange lost’’ in leader–member exchange theory and research: A

critique and a reconceptualization. Leadership, 0(0), 1-17.

doi:10.1177/1742715014530935

Sherman, K. E., Kennedy, D. M., Woodard, M. S., & McComb, S. A. (2012). Examining the

“exchange” in leader–member exchange. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 19(4), 407-423. doi:10.1177/1548051812442963

Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M.-G. (2012). Resources for change: The relationships of

organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees' attitudes and

176

behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (3), 727-

748. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0325

Sinha, N. A., & Rauscher, B. M. (2014). Preparing Digital Natives for Industry. Paper presented

at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer

Science and Computer Engineering (FECS), Madison, NJ. Retrieved from: http://world-

comp.org/preproc2014/FEC3353.pdf

Smissen, S. v. d., Schalk, R., & Freese, C. (2013). Contemporary psychological contracts: How

both employer and employee are changing the employment relationship. Management

Revue. Socio-economic Studies, 24(4), 309-327. doi:10.1688/1861-

9908_mrev_2013_04_Smissen

Smith, C. (2015). Exemplary leadership: How style and culture predict organizational outcomes.

Nursing Management, 46(3), 47-51. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000456659.17651.c0

Smith, J. A. (2010). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9-27. doi:10.1080/17437199.2010.510659

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:

Theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Smola, K., & Sutton, C. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values

for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363-382.

doi:10.1002/job.147

Sorokin, P. A. (1959). Social Mobility. New York, NY: The Crowell-Collier Publishing

Company.

177

Sorsa, M. A., Kiikkala, I., & Åstedt-Kurki, P. (2015). Bracketing as a skill in conducting

unstructured qualitative interviews. Nurse Researcher, 22 (4), 8-12.

doi:10.7748/nr.22.4.8.e1317

Stam, W., Arzlanian, S., & Elfring, T. (2014). Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm

performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of

Business Venturing, 29(1), 152-173. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.002

Standifer, R. L., Lester, S. W., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. (2013). How age similarity

preference, uncertainty, and workplace challenges affect conflict. Human Relations,

66(12), 1597-1618. doi:10.1177/0018726713482012

Starks, A. (2013). The forthcoming generational workforce transition and rethinking

organizational knowledge transfer. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11(3),

223-237. doi:10.1080/15350770.2013.810494

Steizel, S., & Rimbau-Gilabert, E. (2013). Upward influence tactics through technology-

mediated communication tools. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 462-472.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.024

Stephenson, G. (2014). Breaking traditions with reciprocal mentoring. Nursing Management,

45(6), 10-12. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000449766.91747.77

Strawderman, L. (2014). Leveraging generational differences to reduce knowledge transfer and

retention issues in public administration. Public Administration Research, 3(2), 61-75.

doi:10.5539/par.v3n2p61

178

Sue-Chan, C., Au, A. K. C., & Hackett, R. D. (2012). Trust as a mediator of the relationship

between leader/member behavior and leader-member-exchange quality. Journal of World

Business, 47(3), 459-468. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.012

Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of

training and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 393-412. doi:10.1002/job.1897

Susskind, A. M., Odom-Reed, P. R., & Viccari, A. E. (2011). Team leaders and team members in

interorganizational networks: An examination of structural holes and performance.

Communication Research, 38(5), 613-633. doi:10.1177/0093650210380867

Sut, I. W. H., Christina, G. L. N., & Dysvik, A. (2014). Empowering leadership, employee goal

orientations and work performance. Personnel Review, 43(2), 246-271. doi:10.1108/PR-

01-2012-0008

Tams, S. (2013). Moving cultural information systems research toward maturity: A review of

definitions of the culture construct. Information Technology & People, 26(4), 383-400.

doi:10.1108/ITP-11-2012-0138

Teclaw, R., Osatuke, K., Fishman, J., Moore, S. C., & Dyrenforth, S. (2014). Employee age and

tenure within organizations: Relationship to workplace satisfaction and workplace

climate perceptions. The health care manager, 33(1), 4-19.

doi:10.1097/01.HCM.0000440616.31891.2d

Tee, E., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Paulsen, N. (2013). The influence of follower mood on leader

mood and task performance: An affective, follower-centric perspective of leadership. The


179

Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of

the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal

of Research in Personality, 50, 61-65. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.006

Thomas, E., & Magilvy, J. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative

research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(2), 151-155.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x

Thompson, C., & Gregory, J. B. (2012). Managing Millennials: A framework for improving

attraction, motivation, and retention. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15(4), 237-246.

doi:10.1080/10887156.2012.730444

Thompson, K. S. (2013). Organizational learning support preferences of Millennials: An

interpretive study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut). Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/102/

Todd, V. (2014). Public relations supervisors and Millennial entry-level practitioners rate entry-

level job skills and professional characteristics. Public Relations Review, (0), 1-9.

doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.05.002

Top, M., Akdere, M., & Tarcan, M. (2015). Examining transformational leadership, job

satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational trust in Turkish hospitals:

public servants versus private sector employees. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 26(9), 1259-1282. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.939987

Torche, F., & Valenzuela, E. (2011). Trust and reciprocity: A theoretical distinction of the

sources of social capital. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(2), 181-198.

doi:10.1177/1368431011403461

180

Treadway, D. C., Breland, J. W., Williams, L. M., Cho, J., Yang, J., & Ferris, G. R. (2013).

Social influence and interpersonal power in organizations: Roles of performance and

political skill in two studies. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1529-1553.

doi:10.1177/0149206311410887

Trees, L. (2015). Encouraging millennials to collaborate and learn on the job. Strategic HR

Review, 14(4), 118-123. doi:10.1108/SHR-06-2015-0042

Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2014). “Young people these days … ”: Evidence for

negative perceptions of emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood, 2(3), 211-226.

doi:10.1177/2167696814522620

Tulgan, B. (2011). Generation Y: All grown up and now emerging as new leaders. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 5(3), 77-81. doi:10.1002/jls.20237

Twenge, J. (2007). Generation me: Why today's young Americans are more confident, assertive,

entitled--and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press.

Twenge, J. (2013). The evidence for generation me and against generation we. Emerging

Adulthood, 1(1), 11-16. doi:10.1177/2167696812466548

Twenge, J., & Campbell, S. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their

impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 862-877.

doi:10.1108/02683940810904367

Twenge, J., Campbell, S., Hoffman, B., & Lance, C. (2010). Generational differences in work

values: leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing.

Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117-1142. doi:10.1177/0149206309352246

181

Uelmen, A. J. (2013). Millennial momentum for revising the rhetoric of lawyers' relationships

and roles. Thomas Law Journal, 9(2), 446-470. Retrieved from

http//ir.stthomas.edu/ustlj/vol9/iss2/12

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A

review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

Ulaga, W., & Loveland, J. M. (2014). Transitioning from product to service-led growth in

manufacturing firms: Emergent challenges in selecting and managing the industrial sales

force. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 113-125.

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.08.006

Umamaheswari, S., & Krishnan, J. (2015). Retention factors and their relative significance in

ceramic manufacturing industries in India. Asian Social Science, 11(13), 260-268.

doi:10.5539/ass.v11n13p260

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). Economic News Release:

Employee Tenure Summary (USDL-14-1714). Retrieved from

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm

Vagel, M. D. (2014). Crafting Phenomenological Research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast

Press.

Vermeeren, B., Kuipers, B., & Steijn, B. (2014). Does leadership style make a difference?

Linking HRM, job satisfaction, and organizational performance. Review of Public

Personnel Administration, 34(2), 174-195. doi:10.1177/0734371x13510853

182

Vidyarthi, P. R., Erdogan, B., Anand, S., Liden, R. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2014). One member,

two leaders: Extending leader–member exchange theory to a dual leadership context.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 468-483. doi:10.1037/a0035466

Volmer, J., Niessen, C., Spurk, D., Linz, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Reciprocal relationships

between leader-member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction: A cross-lagged analysis.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(4), 522-545. doi:10.1111/j.1464-

0597.2011.00446.x

Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy,

and creative work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 456-465.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.10.005

von Schlippe, A., & Frank, H. (2013). The theory of social systems as a framework for

understanding family businesses. Family Relations, 62(3), 384-398.

doi:10.1111/fare.12010

Wang, X.H., Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., & Janssen, O. (2015). Understanding employee innovative

behavior: Integrating the social network and leader–member exchange perspectives.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(3), 403-420. doi:10.1002/job.1994

Waters, R. D., Bortree, D. S., & Tindall, N. T. (2013). Can public relations improve the

workplace? Measuring the impact of stewardship on the employer-employee relationship.

Employee Relations, 35(6), 613-629. doi:10.1108/ER-12-2012-0095

Weber, J. M., & Moore, C. (2014). Squires: Key followers and the social facilitation of

charismatic leadership. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(3), 199-227.

doi:10.1177/2041386613498765

183

Westerman, J. W., Bergman, J. Z., Bergman, S. M., & Daly, J. P. (2012). Are universities

creating Millennial narcissistic employees? An empirical examination of narcissism in

business students and its implications. Journal of Management Education, 36(1), 5-32.

doi:10.1177/1052562911408097

Windle, K., & von Treuer, K. (2014). Psychological contract development: An integration of

existing knowledge to form a temporal model. International Journal of Business and

Social Research, 4(7), 23-37. Retrieved from:

http://thejournalofbusiness.org/index.php/site/article/view/437

Winter, R. P., & Jackson, B. A. (2014). Expanding the younger worker employment relationship:

Insights from values-based organizations. Human Resource Management, 53(2), 311-

328. doi:10.1002/hrm.21600

Wittig, C. (2012). Employees' reactions to organizational change. OD Practitioner, 44(2), 23-28.

Retrieved from http://ebscohost.com Database. (Accession No.74024719)

Wok, S., & Hashim, J. (2013). Communicating and sharing working relationships with older

employees. Journal of Communication Management, 17(2), 100-121.

doi:10.1108/13632541311318729

Wong, S. I., C. Nerstad, & Dysvik, A. (2014). Empowering leadership, employee goal

orientations and work performance. Personnel Review, 43 (2), 246-271. doi:10.1108/PR-01-

2012-0008

Yang, C., Ding, C. G., & Lo, K. W. (2015). Ethical leadership and multidimensional

organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating effects of self-efficacy, respect, and

184

leader–member exchange. Group & Organization Management. 40(2), 1-32.

doi:10.1177/1059601115594973

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions:

epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of

Education, 48(2), 311-325. doi:10.1111/ejed.12014

Yoon Jik, C., & Hanjun, P. (2011). Exploring the relationships among trust, employee

satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Public Management Review, 13(4), 551-

573. doi:10.1080/14719037.2010.525033

Young, S. J., Sturts, J. R., Ross, C. M., & Kim, K. T. (2013). Generational differences and job

satisfaction in leisure services. Managing Leisure, 18(2), 152-170.

doi:10.1080/13606719.2013.752213

Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2013). Generations at work: Managing the clash of

Boomers, Gen Xers, and Gen Yers in the workplace. New York, NY: Amacom Books.

Zhang, A. Y., Song, L. J., Tsui, A. S., & Fu, P. P. (2014). Employee responses to employment-

relationship practices: The role of psychological empowerment and traditionality. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 35(6), 809-830. doi:10.1002/job.1929

Zhang, Z., Wang, M. O., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality

and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-to-member exchange. Academy of

Management Journal, 55(1), 111-130. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0865

Zheng, Y., & Wang, L. (2012). Consensus of heterogeneous multi-agent systems without

velocity measurements. International Journal of Control, 85(7), 906-914.

doi:10.1080/00207179.2012.669048

185

Zhou, M., & Shi, S. (2014). Blaming leaders for team relationship conflict? The roles of leader-

member exchange differentiation and ethical leadership. Nankai Business Review

International, 5(2), 1-15. doi:10.1108/NBRI-09-2013-0036

186

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate

Subject: Invitation to participate for research study

Study Title: A Qualitative Evaluation of Leader-to-Millennial Relationship Development

Dear XX,

My name is Tywana Williams, I am a doctoral candidate in the College of Management Department at

Walden University. I am conducting a dissertation study as part of the requirements for my management degree

specializing in Leadership and Organizational Change, and I would like to invite you to participate within the

gathering of Millennial work experiences.

I am studying the Millennial generation’s experiences within relationships with organizational leaders or

managers. Participants selected must be 18 to 32 years of age and working with their current manager for one year

or more. If you do not meet this age requirement, please feel free to recommend individuals who meet this criterion.

The information provides a platform to learn and develop methods to assist with developing effective multi-

generational work environments.

Organizations face a variety of internal challenges in today’s workplace. Three generations working side by

side with differing values and styles can deter traditional methods of leadership. This study is created to evaluate the

perceptions of the youngest member of the organization to broaden management’s understanding within the (a)

retention of Millennials (b) development of effective multi-generational relationships, and (c) implementation of

leadership relational interventions for effective knowledge sharing.

A presentation will be given to summarize the research finding. All information gathered from the

participant is confidential. Information reported will provide common themes found from shared experiences.

Recommendations will be given to assist with navigating leadership challenges within the development of high

quality relationships with Millennials. The information may contribute to organizational change initiatives that may

minimize the financial and intellectual expenses.

Please feel free to refer professionals, family, or friends who meet the criteria of the research study.

Information can be forwarded to perspective participants. If the individual decides to participate they can contact me

at (631) 647-4693 or email me at [email protected]. Participants will receive an email explaining the

research purpose, process, and participant rights. A consent form will be attached that must be signed before the

interview appointment.

Thanking you in advance for your time and cooperation.

Tywana Williams


187

Appendix B: 1st Chamber of Commerce Letter of Cooperation

188

Appendix C: 2nd

Chamber of Commerce Letter of Cooperation

189

Appendix D: Qualitative Interview Protocol

Table A1

Interview Protocol

Questions

LMX and Relationship Development Practices

1. Describe the relationship you have with your manager?

2. What were your expectations toward your manager when you first started working at

your company?

3. In what ways did your manager exceed your expectations?

4. Using your working experience as a reference, how would you describe the purpose of

the manager-to-employee relationship?

5. Identify the elements required for an effective manager to employee relationship

development?

LMX and Role Development Practices

6. Share an experience that may have assisted you with developing your role within the

company?

LMX and Task Delegation Practices

7. What is the nature of the procedure used by your manager to delegate tasks?

8. Describe how you feel when your manager gives you a task that may be outside of your

regular duties?

9. What are some of the reasons you would volunteer to do tasks that may be outside of the

scope of your normal duties?

Millennials and High-Quality Relationships

10. What advice would you give managers to assist them with building a high-quality

relationship with his or her employee?

11. What advice would you give a new employee to assist them with building a high- quality


12. Is there anything else you would like to add that we have not discussed regarding your

relationship with your manager?

______________________________________________________________________________

190

Appendix E: Expert Panel Email Invitation

Study Title: A Qualitative Evaluation of Leader-to-Millennial Relationship Development

Dear XX,

My name is Tywana Williams, I am a doctoral candidate in the College of Management

Department at Walden University. I am conducting a dissertation study as part of the

requirements for my management degree specializing in Leadership and Organizational Change,

and I would be honored if you could find the time to assist me with the evaluation and validation

of my qualitative interview tool.

The purpose of the qualitative interview is to understand the experiences of Millennial

employees to address the gap within the comprehension of the cohort’s responses toward

building high performing relationships with leadership. The leader-to-member exchange (LMX)

theory provides the conceptual framework for qualitative inquiry. Seminal theorist of the

relational leadership theory proposed that activities (communications, task delegation, and

employee performance) contribute to the development of high quality relationships. High quality

relationships are described as organizational social exchanges that influence employee behaviors

toward extending resources (time, skills, and knowledge) outside his or her employee contractual

obligations.

The qualitative interview is constructed to explore millennial experiences of

organizational relationship development through questions that articulate the essence of social

exchange performance. The interview questions are as follows:

1. Tell me about your experience working at your company?

2. Can you describe the relationship you have with your manager?

3. What were your expectations toward your manager when you started working for

the company?

4. In what ways did your relationship with your manager meet your expectations?

5. In what ways did your relationship with your manager exceed your expectations?

6. Using your working experience as a reference; how would you define the purpose

of the leader-to-employee relationship?

7. If you were comparing your relationship with your manager and your co-worker,

what would be some of the differences?

8. If you were comparing your relationship with your manager and your co-worker,

what would be some of the similarities?

9. Can you share an experience that may have assisted you with developing your

role within the company?

10. What is the procedure used by your manager to delegate tasks?

191

11. Can you describe how you feel when your manager gives you a task that maybe

outside of your regular duties?

12. What would be some of the reasons you would volunteer to do tasks that may be

outside of the scope of your normal duties?

13. From your working experience what would you say is an important factor needed

to establish a relationship with your manager or leader?

14. What advice would you give a college student that would help them build a

relationship with their manager?

15. What advice would you give a manager that would help them build a relationship

with their employee?

Expert panel validation of the interview items is critical for effective sampling. The

qualitative interview analysis form attached assists with evaluating question content, clarity, and

appropriateness. I will promptly review and revise interview questions. A second email

correspondence will include edits for expert approval. If you have questions regarding my

dissertation research please contact me at (631)647-4693 or

email:[email protected].

Thank you in advance for the quality of your time and input.

Tywana Williams

192

Appendix F: IRB Forms and Approval

Dear Ms. Williams,

This email is to notify you that the Institutional Review Board (IRB) has approved your

application for the study entitled, "A Qualitative Evaluation of Leader-to-Millennial

Relationship Development."

Your approval # is 02-10-15-0230896. You will need to reference this number in your

dissertation and in any future funding or publication submissions. Also attached to this e-

mail is the IRB approved consent form. Please note, if this is already in an on-line format,

you will need to update that consent document to include the IRB approval number and

expiration date.

Your IRB approval expires on February 9, 2016. One month before this expiration date, you

will be sent a Continuing Review Form, which must be submitted if you wish to collect data

beyond the approval expiration date.

Your IRB approval is contingent upon your adherence to the exact procedures described in

the final version of the IRB application document that has been submitted as of this date.

This includes maintaining your current status with the university. Your IRB approval is only

valid while you are an actively enrolled student at Walden University. If you need to take a

leave of absence or are otherwise unable to remain actively enrolled, your IRB approval is

suspended. Absolutely NO participant recruitment or data collection may occur while a

student is not actively enrolled.

If you need to make any changes to your research staff or procedures, you must obtain IRB

approval by submitting the IRB Request for Change in Procedures Form. You will receive

confirmation with a status update of the request within 1 week of submitting the change

request form and are not permitted to implement changes prior to receiving

approval. Please note that Walden University does not accept responsibility or liability for

research activities conducted without the IRB's approval, and the University will not accept

or grant credit for student work that fails to comply with the policies and procedures related

to ethical standards in research.

When you submitted your IRB application, you made a commitment to communicate both

discrete adverse events and general problems to the IRB within 1 week of their

occurrence/realization. Failure to do so may result in invalidation of data, loss of academic

credit, and/or loss of legal protections otherwise available to the researcher.

Both the Adverse Event Reporting form and Request for Change in Procedures form can be

obtained at the IRB section of the Walden website:

http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/researchcenter/orec


193

Researchers are expected to keep detailed records of their research activities (i.e.,

participant log sheets, completed consent forms, etc.) for the same period of time they retain

the original data. If, in the future, you require copies of the originally submitted IRB

materials, you may request them from Institutional Review Board.

Both students and faculty are invited to provide feedback on this IRB experience at the link

below:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=qHBJzkJMUx43pZegKlmdiQ_3d_3d

Sincerely,

Libby Munson

Research Ethics Support Specialist

Office of Research Ethics and Compliance

Email: [email protected]

Fax: 626-605-0472

Phone: 612-312-1283

Office address for Walden University:

100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 900

Minneapolis, MN 55401

Information about the Walden University Institutional Review Board, including instructions

for application, may be found at this link:


http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=qHBJzkJMUx43pZegKlmdiQ_3d_3d


tel:626-605-0472

tel:612-312-1283


194

Appendix G: Informed Consent

You are invited to take part in a research study of the Millennial generation’s responses toward

current relationships with organizational leaders and managers. The researcher is inviting

individuals between the ages of 18-33 working with his or her current manager for 1 year or

more to be in the study. This form is part of a process called “informed consent” to allow you to

understand this study before deciding whether to take part.

This study is being conducted by a researcher named Tywana Williams, who is a doctoral

student at Walden University.

Background Information: The purpose of this study is to collect data regarding your working relationship with your

manager or leader.

Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, the procedures are as follows:

Meet for an interview at a mutually agreed upon time and place.

Attend Interview that will take approximately 90.

Agree to audio taping of interview for further analysis.

Review interview transcripts to ensure that information is authentic

Follow up meeting (face to face or telephone) to answer any questions regarding

interview process and content.

Here are some sample questions:

__ Can you describe the relationship you have with your manager?

__ Can you describe how you feel when your manager gives you a task that may be outside

of your regular duties?

__ What advice would you give a new employee to assist them with building a high quality


Voluntary Nature of the Study: This study is voluntary. Everyone will respect your decision of whether or not you choose to be

in the study. No one will treat you differently if you decide not to be in the study. If you decide

to join the study now, you can still change your mind later. You may stop at any time.

Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study: Being in this study would not pose risk to your safety or wellbeing. The potential benefit of

participating within this study is to provide a platform to express your experiences to assist with

the implementation of future leadership and organizational initiatives. The information may

contribute to building effective relationships within organizational communities.

Payment:

195

This is a voluntary activity to broaden management’s knowledge within the evaluation and

comprehension of leader-to-Millennial relationship development. Therefore, reimbursements or

gifts will not be given in exchange for participation.

Privacy: Any information you provide will be kept confidential. The researcher will not use your personal

information for any purposes outside of this research project. Also, the researcher will not

include your name or anything else that could identify you in the study reports. Data will be

stored within a secure external hard drive located in a locked filing cabinet. Data will be kept for

a period of at least 5 years, as required by the university.

Contacts and Questions: You may ask any questions you have now. Or if you have questions later, you may contact the

researcher via telephone (631)647-4693 and/or email [email protected]. If you

want to talk privately about your rights as a participant, you can call Dr. Leilani Endicott. She is

the Walden University representative who can discuss this with you. Her phone number is 612-

312-1210. Walden University’s approval number for this study is ____________________ and it

expires on ___________________.

The researcher will give you a copy of this form to keep.

Statement of Consent:

I have read the above information and I feel I understand the study well enough to make a

decision about my involvement. By replying to this email with the words, “I consent”, I

understand that I am agreeing to the terms described above.

196

Appendix H: Participant Inclusion/Exclusion Screening Questions

I’m calling because you expressed interest in my research study evaluating the experiences of

Millennial employees within relationships with leaders. Can you please take a moment to answer

the following questions?

Please be advised that all questions are to ensure that you fit the criteria for this research. Again I

must stress that all information is confidential and for research participation purposes only.

1. How old are you?

2. What is the name of your organization?

3. What is your organizations primary field of business or service?

4. How many years have you been with the organization/company?

5. How long have you worked with your current manager or leader?

6. Finally, this question is necessary, in that English is the primary language used in

the development of the interview questions. Do you fluently speak and understand

the English language?

The information will assist in identifying if the individual fits the following criteria:

Age (18-33)

Type of organization

Employed for one year or more.

Worked with manager/leader one year or more

Speak and understand English